BAPTISM  or 

ROGER  WILLIAMS 


';^  s^ 


^^ ^    ]^i^'^go,^^\y:rl 


t:.:;W;y;.^':,::,i:i;:v>^<:;,; 
pi^i:;V ■  v'S'v ;-:;;;:V:  ■ 


HnNRY  MEIVILLE  KING 


e<H 


1  #  ^>* 


"l^i-V^sPM?^- 


*v*. 


/2.  //.  3V 
LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


►  >:, 


PRINCETON,     N.    J. 


BX  6A95  .W55  K5 
King,  Henry  Melville. 
The  baptism  of  Roger 
Williams 

\ 

■  JFak-"^' i-:i¥^ 


t^^*^^ 


MHfi 


t». 


.•■*^# 


>  ■>. .  *5^ 


•    THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER   WILLIAMS 


HISTORICAL  PUBLICATIONS 

BY  THE  SAME   AUTHOR. 


Historical  Discourse  at  the  Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  the  Dudley 
Street  Baptist  Church,  Boston,  Mass.     {Boston,  1S71). 

Early  Baptists  Defended  :  a  Review  of  Rev.  Dr.  Henry  M.  Dex 
ter's  account  of  the  Visit  to  William  Witter  in  "As  to  Roger 
Williams."    {Boston,  ISSO). 

History  of  the  Baptists  in  Boston,  in  Memorial  Hist,  of  Boston, 
Vol.  III.     {Boston,  1881). 

Memorial  Discourse  at  the  Semi-Centennial  Celebration  of  the 
First  Baptist  Church  of  Fitchburg,  Mass.    {Fitdiburg,  1881). 

Historical  Discourse  at  the  Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  the  Emman- 
uel Baptist  Church,  Albany,  N.Y.    {Albany,  188U). 

A  Century  of  National  Life :  a  Thanksgiving  Discourse.    {Albany, 

1888). 

The  Baptists  and  Religious  Liberty  in  this  Country  :  an  Address 
at  the  Dedication  of  the  Backus  Monument  at  North  Middle- 
boro',  Mass.    {Boston,  189ii). 

Religious  Liberty  the  Trophy  of  the  Baptists  :  an  Address  deliv- 
ered at  Indianapolis  before  the  Baptist  Young  People's  Union 
of  America.    {Chicago,  189U). 

Historical  Address  at  the  Seventy-fifth  Anniversary  of  the  First 
Baptist  Sunday  School  in  Providence,  R.  I.    {Providence,  18'jk). 

A  Summer  Visit  of  Three  Rhode  Islanders  to  the  Massachusetts 
Bay  in  1651 :  a  new  edition  of  "  Early  Baptists  Defended," 
enlarged  by  the  addition  of  valuable  matter.  {Providence, 
1891}). 

The  Mother  Church :  a  brief  Account  of  the  Origin  and  early 
History  of  the  First  Baptist  Church  in  Providence,  R.  I. 

{Philadelphia,  189(!). 


V 


'^v 


THE 


■OGlStiL  BVf' 


\\.=- 


■^ 


BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS 


A  KEVIEW 

OF  REV.  DR.  IV.  11.  WHITSITT'S  INFERENCE 


BY 


^ 


HENRY    MELVILLE    KING 

PA&TOR   OF   THE   FIRST   BAPTIST   CHURCH 
PROVIDENCE 


WITH  AN  LNir.ODrCTlON  BY  REV.  JESSE  B.  THOMAS,  D  D. 

PROFESSOR   OF   CHURCH   HISTORY   IN   THE   NEWTON 
THEOI.OcaCAL   INSTITUTION 


PKOYIDENCE 

PRESTON  &  ROUNDS  CO. 

1897 


COPYUIGHT,    1K97' 
BY 

II  E  N  R  Y    M  .     KIN  G 


PUESS   OF 
E.    I..    FUEEMAN   &    SONS,   PROVIDENCE,   R.    I. 


Zo 


TUE   SACRED   MEMORY 
OF 

IRcv.  Samuel  Xunt  GalC)\vell,  H).2). 

FOR  FIFTEEN  YEARS  PASTOR  OF  THE  FIRST  BAPTIST  CHURCH 
IN  PROVIDENCE,  ^VHOSE  FRIENDSHIP  ENRICHED  MY  EARLY 
MINISTRY  AND  INTO  WHOSE  LABORS  I  HAVE  NOW  ENTERED  : 
WHO,  AS  PASTOR,  THEOLOGICAL  PROFESSOR  AND  COLLECiE 
PRESIDENT,  GAVE  TO  HIS  THREEFOLD  SERVICE  IN  LIFE  A 
HEART  OF  XTNQUESTIONEt)  DEVOTION,  A  SPIRIT  OF  BROAD 
CATHOLICITY  AND  A  MIND  OF  RARE  Cl'LTlKE  :  AND  WHO, 
BY  HIS  CAKEFrL  HISTORICAL  RESEARCHES,  DID  MICH  TO 
ELl'CIDATE  AND  PRESERVE  THE  HISTORY  OF 
'"THE    MOTHER    CHURCH." 


JAMES  S,  SLATER, 
SLATERSTILLE, 

RHODE  ISLAND. 


INTEODUCTION 

"  Eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  "  of  truth 
as  well  as  "  liberty."  An  uncorrected  mis- 
statement of  historic  detail,  even  as  to  cir- 
cumstances apparently  of  minor  sig-nificance, 
may  prove  like  a  trifling-  crevice  in  the  levee 
which,  neglected,  rapidly  swells  to  a  devas- 
tating crevasse. 

.  It  is,  therefore,  a  sagacious  as  well  as 
honorable  instinct  that  prompts  suspicion 
and  challenge  of  every  proposed  re-inter- 
pretation of  the  facts  or  documents  of  the 
past  which  involves  a  radical  reversal  of 
wide -spread  and  supposedly  authoritative 
opinion.  Especially  ought  Ave  to  be  sen- 
sitive to  the  proposal  of  any  novel  and 
eccentric  theory  as  to  the  acts  or  words  of 
our  spiritual  ancestors  where  it  may,  even 
inferentially  or  remotely,  bring  into  ques- 
tion  their   long   established    reputation    for 


Vlll  INTRODUCTION 

sagacity,  sincerity,  and  unHincliing  loyalty 
to  conviction.  A  people  not  zealous  to 
clierisli  and  jealons  to  protect  the  good 
name  of  their  fathers  have  already  ceased 
to  appreciate  the  legacy  transmitted  to 
them  at  so  great  cost,  and  will  soon  cease 
to  imitate  the  virtues  they  have  undervalued. 
It  is  a  cherished  opinion  of  the  Baptists 
that  when  men  have  been  brought  face  to 
face  with  the  Word  of  God,  unhindered  by 
the  perversions  of  priests  and  the  fogs  of 
tradition,  they  have  inevitably  recognized 
not  only  tliat  they  ought,  but  Iloid  they 
ought,  to  be  baptized :  for  the  one  is  as 
unequivocally  clear  in  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament  as  the  other.  Noticing 
Christ's  test  of  loyalty,  "  If  a  man  love  me 
he  will  keep  my  words,''  it  is  not  to  be 
lightly  presumed  that  they  would  ignore  or 
toy  with  an  express  command  in  the  one 
case  more  readily  than  in  the  other.  Ac- 
cordingly it  turns  out  as  was  to  be  expected, 
that  the  departure  froui  the  rule  and  prac- 
tice of  the  New  Testament,  the  immersion 
of   believers,  in  the  history  of   the  church. 


INTRODUCTION  ix 

was   slow   and   liesitatiDg,  and   long   recog- 
nized as  justifiable  only  in  exceptional  c(3n- 
ditions  and  Avlien  artificially  buttressed  by 
specific   ecclesiastical  authority.      The  sub- 
stitution  of    pouring    or    sprinkling    as   the 
normal   type  of   baptism  was   never  hinted 
at  until  the  sixteenth  century.     In  England 
the   belief   in    the    necessity   of   immersion, 
save  in  extraordinary  cases,  was  uniform  up 
to  the  date  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  in 
1G44.     It  seems  an  extravagant  assumption, 
therefore,  that  while  all  the  rest  of  the  Avorld 
had  steadily  maintained  the  priority  of  im- 
mersion as  the  Gospel  type,  the  anti-Pedo- 
baptists    alone    had    first    voluntarily   repu- 
diated   it.      Yet    this    is,   substantially,   the 
proposition  to  which  Dr.  AVhitsitt  has  com- 
mitted himself,  and  to  which  Dr.  King  has 
here  convincingly  replied.     The   whole  set- 
ting of  the  case,  as  well  as  the  undisturbed 
and  unquestioned  belief  of  the   community 
among  whom  the  facts  occurred,  are  hostile 
to   Dr.   Whitsitt's  view,  and    there   is   little 
reason  to  1  eheve  that  it  can  ultimately  jus- 
tify itself. 


X  INTRODUCTION 

As  to  the  case  of  Roger  Williams,  in 
which  Dr.  King  and  his  i3eople  are  pecu- 
liarly and  properly  concerned,  there  is,  as 
is  here  made  manifest,  still  less  reason 
shown  for  the  reversal  of  hitherto  unques- 
tioned opinion.  To  contradict  the  positive 
testimony  in  the  case,  buttressed  by  an  im- 
mense body  of  preliminary  i3resumption, 
under  so  slender  pretexts,  is  to  attempt 
the  substitution  of  fancy  for  fact,  and  to 
turn  back  the  whole  sweep  of  historic  judg- 
ment. 

I  symx)athize  heartily  with  the  feeling 
that  the  maintenance  of  historic  truth  in 
the  particulars  here  discussed  is  of  high 
importance  to  us  and  to  all  Christians,  and 
well  worthy  of  the  industry  and  sagacity 
l)estowed  ujDon  it,  and  esteem  it  a  privilege 
heartily  to  commend  so  careful,  courteous, 
candid,  and  thorough  a  presentation  of  the 
subject  to  the  impartial  inquirer. 

J.   B.   THOMAS. 

Newton  Theologicaij  Institution, 
May  20,  1897. 


JAMES  S.  SLATER, 
SLATERSVILLE, 

RHODE  ISLAND. 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS. 


President  William  H.  Whitsitt  of  tlie 
Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary, 
in  his  recent  v^olume  entitled  '^  A  Ques- 
tion in  Baptist  History,"  in  which  he 
has  undertaken  to  prove  that  immersion 
was  not  introduced  among  the  English 
Baptists  until  the  year  1641,  has  an  ap- 
pendix upon  the  "Baptism  of  Roger 
Williams."  The  addition  of  this  ap- 
pendix to  the  body  of  the  book  reveals 
conclusively  the  mental  process  of  the 
author.  Having  first  established,  as  he 
believed,  the  late  introduction  of  immer- 
sion among  the  Baptists  in  England,  he 
infers  that  Roger  AVilliams,  whose  bap- 
tism occurred  two  or  three  years  before 


2  THE   BAPTISM   OF   EOGER   WILLIAMS 

1641,  could  not  have  been  in  advance  of 
the  English  Baptists,  that  is,  could  not 
have  been  immersed.  He  would  attach 
it  as  a  corollary  to  his  main  proposition. 

It  is  an  inferential  kind  of  history, 
which  is  of  the  most  uncertain  and  un- 
trustworthy nature.  The  author  has 
indeed  ransacked  the  pages  of  history  to 
find  something  to  support  his  inference, 
and  has  brought  the  results  of  his  search 
together  in  the  appendix  of  his  book. 
But  it  is  safe  to  say  that  had  he  not 
first  accepted  the  theory  in  reference  to 
the  English  Baptists,  he  would  never 
have  called  in  question  the  belief  in  the 
immersion  of  Roger  Williams,  Avliich 
has  been  accepted  without  the  suspicion 
of  a  dissent  for  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years. 

It  should  be  stated  that  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1880  there  appeared  in  Tlie  In- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   EOGER  ^yILLIAMS  3 

dependent  t^vo  articles  advocating  the 
views  ^vhicll  Di\  AVhitsitt  has  promul- 
gated ill  his  book.  They  appeared  an- 
onymously in  the  form  of  editorials,  and 
were  supposed  by  most  persons  to  liave 
come  from  tlie  editor's  pen.  Some  sus- 
pected that  Dr.  Henry  ]\r.  Dexter,  editor 
of  llie  Co7}gr€gationalist^  might  be  the 
author  of  them,  as  he  was  publishing 
about  that  time- similar  views  in  his  own 
paper.  The  vie^vs  were  vigorously  called 
in  question  at  the  time  by  Baptist  papers, 
especially  by  the  Zion's  Advocate  of 
Portland,  Me.,  edited  by  the  accom- 
plished historian  of  Baptist  and  Ana- 
baptist history,  Dr.  Henry  S.  Burrage. 
The  discussion,  however,  soon  ended, 
and  the  inference  as  to  the  non-immer- 
sion of  Roger  AVilliams  was  so  unwar- 
ranted and  unreasonable,  so  contrary  to 
the  testimony  of  his  contemporaries  and 


4  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

all  the  known  facts  in  the  case,  that  it 
had  no  influence  whatever,  and  was  re- 
gai'ded  by  most  persons  as  not  worthy 
of  serious  consideration. 

It  was  not  until  April,  1896,  that  Dr. 
Whitsitt  acknowledged  the  paternity  of 
the  articles  in  The  Independent^  greatly 
to  the  surprise  of  Baptists  North  and 
South.  This  he  did  in  an  article  in  The 
Examiner^  called  out  by  a  criticism  of 
ours  upon  two  articles  by  him  which 
appeared  in  Johnson'' s  New  Universal 
Gyclopcedia^  published  in  January,  1893, 
upon  the  Anabaptists  and  the  Baptists. 
Our  criticism  was  published  in  The  Ex- 
aminer in  the  previous  month,  very  soon 
after  our  attention  had  been  called  to 
the  Cyclopaedia,  and  proved  to  be  the 
match  that  kindled  an  extended  confla- 
gration, which  has  raged  with  special 
fierceness  in  the  South.     In  the  Cyclo- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF  ROGER   WILLIAMS  5 

pteclia  Dr.  Wliitsitt  published  bis  views 
for  the  first  time  over  his  own  signature. 
Speaking  of  the  Baptism  of  Eoger  Wil- 
Mains,  he  says :  ''  The  ceremony  was 
most  likely  performed  by  sprinkling ; 
the  Baptists  of  England  had  not  yet 
adopted  immersion,  and  there  is  no 
reason  which  renders  it  prol^able  that 
AVilliams  was  in  advance  of  them  in 
that  regard."  The  heated  discussion 
which  followed,  compelled  Dr.  AVhitsitt 
in  self -justification  to  issue  his  book — 
"A  Question  in  Baptist  History."  This 
is  a  l)rief  account  of  the  controversy  into 
wliich  the  denomination  has  been  forced 
by  the  publication  of  these  novel  views 
of  Baptist  history  in  a  Cyclopaedia  which, 
it  would  seem,  should  have  opened  its 
pages  to  those  historic  facts  only,  wliich 
are  generally  accepted,  and  not  to  novel 
views  and  alleged  probabilities. 

2 


G  THE   BArnSM   OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS 

The  aroiimeiits  which  Dr.  Whitsitt 
has  brought  for\\  ard  in  the  appendix  to 
substantiate  his  inference,  are  of  a 
shadowy,  unsubstantial  character,  which 
in  themselves  would  not  have  suggested 
the  inference,  but  have  rather  been  sug- 
gested by  the  inference,  which  was 
searching  in  every  direction,  and  was 
quick  to  avail  itself  of  anything  that 
could  be  made  to  appear  to  support  it 
in  its  weakness.  The  most  that  Dr. 
Whitsitt  has  been  able  to  do,  even  in 
his  own  judgment,  by  the  use  of  his  in- 
ference and  arguments  combined,  is  to 
establish  a  probability,  a  probability 
however  which,  so  far  as  we  are  in- 
formed, has  not  commended  itself  to 
the  judgment  of  any  other  historian. 
After  a  discussion  covering  eighteen 
pages,  in  which  the  reasoning  is  in  part 
purely    hypothetical,  and    in    no    small 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ItOGEK   WILLIAMS  7 

part  utterly  irrelevant,  lie  coucliicles  tlie 
appendix  with  tliese  cautious  words: 
"  In  the  present  state  of  information  it 
Avould  be  un^\'ise  to  pronounce  with 
certainty  any  conchision  regarding  this 
question.  HoAvever,  ^vithill  tlie  limits 
of  the  uncertainty  whicli  is  freely  ac- 
knowledged, the  weight  of  evidence 
appears  to  incline  very  clearly  towards 
the  view  that  Kop-er  AVillianis  was 
sprinkled  and  not  immersed  at  Provi- 
dence in  1639." 

This  somewhat  contradictory  utter- 
ance, in  which  the  author  at  first  freely 
acknowledc^es  the  o'reat  uncertaintv^  of 
the  question,  and  confesses  it  to  be  un- 
wise to  pronounce  any  conclusion,  and 
then,  remembering  that  he  must  justify 
liimself  in  such  circumstances  in  raising 
the  question  at  all,  declares  that  the 
weight   of   evidence  appears  to  incline 


8  ^    THE   BAPTISM   OF  KOGER   WILLIAMS 

very  clearly  towai'ds  tlie  view  that 
Roger  Williams  was  sprinkled,  (that  is, 
very  clearly  "witliiii  the  limits  of  the 
uncertainty"),  is  the  conclusicm  of  the 
^vhole  matter,  and  the  largest  result 
that  the  most  pei'sistent  investigation 
has  been  able  to  secure.  It  may  be 
doubted  whether  a  probability,  seriously 
modified  by  the  limits  of  a  great  uncer- 
tainty, is  w^ortli  the  prodigious  effort 
that  has  been  put  forth.  Indeed  it  may 
be  asked  is  a  historian  justified  in  pub- 
licly assailing  a  belief  which  has  been 
established  for  eight  generations,  unless 
he  has  been  able  to  reach  in  his  ow^n 
mind  a  conclusion  more  positive  than 
an  opposite  probability  which  is  still 
surrounded  by  the  limits  of  a  great  un- 
certainty ?  Such  an  assault  demands 
for  its  justification  evidence  of  a  nature 
sufficiently  positive,  at  least,  to  go  far 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGEK   WILLIAMS  9 

to  disprove  the  belief  universally  lielil, 
and  such  conduct  has  a  tendency  to  cast 
a  suspicion  upon  all  matters  of  faith, 
however  sacred.  Life  is  too  sliort  to 
])e  ^vasted  in  trying  to  establish  prob- 
al)ilities,  when  tlie  prol)ability  is  of  no 
conceivable  value,  and  life  is  too  short 
to  be  compelled  to  use  it  in  defending 
the  truth  ao^ainst  those  whose  onlv 
weapon  Avhich  they  have  been  able  to 
forge,  is  an  alleged  probability  confess- 
edly weakened  l)y  a  great  uncertainty. 
It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  review 
to  discuss  fully  the  main  question  of 
Dr.  Whitsitt's  book,  viz.  the  time  of  tlie 
introduction  of  immersion  among  the 
English  Anabaptists.  It  may  be  said, 
however,  in  passing,  tliat  in  the  judg- 
ment of  many  scholars.  Dr.  Whitsitt 
has  been  no  more  successful  than  was 
the   late  Dr.  Henry  M.  Dexter   in  his 


10  THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGER   ^^TLLIAMS 

volume  entitled  ''The  True  Story  of 
John  8m}  th,  tlie  Se-Baptist,"  published 
in  1881,  in  proving  that  prior  to  1641 
immersion  was  not  practiced  among  the 
Baptists  in  England.  Dr.  AVhitsitt  has 
produced  little  testimony  beyond  what 
Dr.  Dexter  had  presented,  indeed  he 
has  drawn  largely  from  Dr.  Dexter's 
documents,  and  has  failed  to  examine 
carefully  tlie  originals,  in  some  instances 
quoting  Dr.  Dexter's  personal,  paren- 
thetical comments  as  if  they  were  a  part 
of  the  original  documents. 

Three  remarks  may  be  made  in  refer- 
ence to  Dr.  Whitsitt's  treatment  of  the 
English  question. 

Eirst,  he  has  failed  utterly  to  present 
an  accurate  picture  of  the  time.  His 
historic  setting  is  faulty  and  misleading, 
and  the  impression  which  it  makes  is 
erroneous.     He   gives   no   adequate   re- 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS     11 

cognition  to  the  prevalence  of  ininier- 
sioii  on  the  continent  of  Europe  for  a 
lumdred  years  and  more,  in  Switzerland, 
Poland,  Silesia,  Lithuania,  Pomerania 
and  Holland.  Indeed,  he  virtnally 
denies  it,  saying  "  few  Anabaptists  any- 
where were  imniersionists,"  and  "  none 
of  the  Anabaptists  of  Holland  or  of  the 
adjacent  sections  of  Germany  were  im- 
mersionists."  In  the  judgment  of  lead- 
ing historians  his  statements  are  far 
from  correct.  He  also  fails  to  re2:>resent 
fairly  the  condition  of  thouo'ht  in  Eno^- 
land  on  tlie  question  of  immersion,  as 
disclosed  in  the  lancyuaofe  of  the  Prayer 
Book  of  Edward  YL,  in  the  long  con- 
tinuance of  the  immersion  of  infants  in 
the  Church  of  England,  even  doAvn  to 
the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,"^ 

*It  is  a  fact  well  known,  as  stated  by  Dean  Stanley 
in  "Christian  Institutions,"  p.  18,  that  "Edward  the 


12     THE  BArXISM  OF  EOGEK  WILLIAMS 

and  in  tlie  action  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly  in  1644,  wliich  thongli  it  re- 
jected immersion,  rejected  it  b}'  a  major- 
ity vote  of  only  one.  This  was  not 
only  "  radical  action  a^-ainst  immervsion," 
as  Dr.  Whitsitt  says,  but  it  revealed  the 
siofnificant  fact  that  the  Assembly,  and 
probably  the  denomination  which  it  re- 
presented, were  al)ont  e(jiially  divided 
in  sentiment  as  to  the  validity  of  im- 
mersion as  scriptural  baptism.  And 
this  was  three  years  after  the  time  of 
the    alleo-ed   introduction  of   immersion 

o 

among  the  English  Baptists.     It  should 

SixUi  and  Elizabeth  were  both  immersed."  It  is  a 
fact,  perhaps  not  so  well  knpwn,  that  infant  innnersion 
was  practiced  in  England  not  infrequently  for  a  hun- 
dred years  longer.  A  clergyman  of  the  Church  of 
England,  named  Blake,  who  was  rector  at  Tamworth, 
writing  in  1644,  said:  "I  have  been  an  eye-witness 
of  many  infants  dipped,  and  I  know  it  to  have  been 
the  constant  practice  of  many  ministers  in  their  places 
for  many  years  together." 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGER   WILLIAMS  13 

l)e  added  that  the  "Confession  of  the 
Seven  Churches"  in  London,  which  dis- 
tinctly declared  that  the  only  true  l)ap- 
tism  was  immersion,  was  issued  in  1643, 
a  fact  NN'hich  requires  us  to  believe  that, 
if  immersion  had  l)een  unknown  until 
1641,  within  the  brief  period  of  two 
years  these  churches  had  abandoned  a 
custom  which  they  had  always  observed, 
and  entered  upon  a  ne\v  ^\  ay.  A  mar- 
vellously rapid  change  of  sentiment  and 
practice !  And  there  is,  ample  proof 
tliat  these  seven  churches  constituted 
l)ut  a  small  fraction  of  the  wliole  num- 
ber of  churches  in  England,  ^vliich  prac- 
ticed immersion  at  tlie  time  when  the 
Confession  was  published.'' 

*Prof.  J.  B.  Thomas,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Church 
History  hi  the  Newton  Theological  lustitutiou,  in  an 
article  in  the  Western  Recorder  of  Dec.  17,  1896,  says : 
"Let  it  be  noted  that  the  first  edition  of  tlie  '  Confession 


14  THE   13APTI8M   OF   EOGER   WILLIAMS 

Indeed  so  widespread  ^vas  the  Baptist 
sentiment  in  England  in  the  first  half 
of  the  seventeenth  centnry  that  its  seeds 
were  brought  to  this  country  among  the 
first  settlers  in  Plymouth  and  the  Massa- 
chusetts Bay,  there  being  those  among 
them  who  favored  not  only  infant  im- 
mersion, but  also  adult  immersion,  a 
fact  which  Dr.  Whitsitt  has  overlooked. 

of  the  Seven  Cliiirclies'  was  issued  in  1648,  affirming 
immersion  to  be  the  only  true  baptism.  Now  Baillie, 
a  jealous  and  sagacious  contemporary  witness,  affirms 
that  this  Confession  expressed  the  already  matured 
faith  of  forty -six  churches,  '  as  I  take  it,  in  and  about 
London.'  Featley,  an  important  figure  in  this  discus- 
sion, reckoned  them,  as  I  remember,  at  fifty -two,  and 
Neal  distinctly  affirms  that  there  were  at  that  date, 
'  54  congregations  of  English  Baptists  in  England  who 
confined  Baptism  to  dipping,'  their  illiterate  preachers 
going  about  the  country,  and  '  making  proselytes  of 
all  who  would  submit  to  their  immersion.'  We  are  re- 
quired then  to  believe,  either  that  out  of  one  congrega- 
tion of  'imnierscrs'  organized  in  1641,  there  had 
grown  this  great  company  in  two  j'cars,  or  that  in  the 


THE   BAPTISM   OF  ROGER   WILLIAMS         -15 

Secondly,  Dr.  Wliitsltt  has  made  an 
unjustifiable  use  of  the  authorities  from 
whicli  he  has  (quoted.  Following  Dr. 
Dexter  closely  he  has  quoted  docu- 
ments as  favoring  the  late  introduction 
of  immersion  as  "  a  neAV  baptism,"  which 
had  no  reference  whatever  to  immei'sion. 


same  time  fifty  or  more  existing  Baptist  congregations 
had  simultaneously  repudiated  a  custom  to  which  they 
were  traditionally  attached  and  which  was  in  universal 
use,  in  behalf  of  another  custom  which  nobody  among 
them  had  ever  practiced  or  even  heard  of  :  they  with- 
out any  newly  assigned  or  intelligible  motive,  sud- 
denly ceased  wholly  to  do  what  they  had  always  and 
uniformly  been  accustomed  to  do,  and  began  exclu- 
sively to  do  what  they  had  never  done  at  all.  So  top- 
pling a  hypothesis  surely  needs  massive  support. 

I  am  not  persuaded  that  this  support  has  been  fur- 
nished or  can  be  furnished.  I  recognize  no  important 
evidence  that  was  not  apparently  accessible  to  Crosby 
in  his  day,  and  see  no  satisfactory  reason  for  abandon- 
ing his  opinion  that  immersion  in  England  long  pre- 
ceded the  date  named  by  Ncal.  and  now  [that  is  in 
1643]  reaffirmed." 


16  -•      THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGER   ^\TLLIAMS 

Both  of  these  authors  seem  to  be  ignor- 
ant of  the  fact  that  at  that  time  the  bap- 
tismal controversy  \vas  hottest  around 
the  validity  and  sacredness  of  infant 
baptism,  and  many  of  the  publications 
were  prepared  by  Pedobaptist  ministers 
acrainst  members  of  their  own  cong^reo^a- 
tions  ^\  ho  were  distrusting  and  rejjudi- 
ating  their  infant  baptism,  and  seeking 
a  new  baptism.  A  careful  examination 
of  these  documents  would  have  shown 
that  they  had  no  reference  to  the  gen- 
uine Baptist  question,  and  no  bearing 
upon  it  whatever.  The  ''new  l)aptism" 
to  which  frequent  reference  was  made, 
'was  not  immersion,  but  a  new  adminis- 
tration of  their  early  baptism.  Immer- 
sion could  be  tolerated,  indeed  it  had 
been  practiced  by  themselves  or  tlieir 
fathers  of  the  inmiediately  preceding 
generation,   but   the   repudiation   of  in- 


THE  BAPTISM   OF   IlOGEri   WILLIAMS  17 

ft 

fant  l)aptism  could  not  he  tolerated.  A 
similar  condition  of  things  existed  in 
this  country.  Dunster,  the  first  Presi- 
dent of  Harvard  College,  rejected  infant 
baptism,  and  Avas  set  aside.  Chauncy 
])elieved  in  infant  innnersion  as  recpiired 
by  the  Scriptures,  and  practiced  it,  im- 
mersing his  own  children,  and  it  appears, 
believed  also  in  adult  immersion,  but 
tliis  ^vas  no  obstacle  to  his  election  as 
Dunster*'s  successor. 

Dr.  S.  L.  Caldwell  (Historical  Dis- 
course on  the  Two  Hundred  and  Fiftieth 
Anniversary  of  .the  First  Baptist  Church 
in  Providence,  p.  29)  says:  ''The  first 
president  of  Harvard  College,  Henry 
Dunster,  denied  the  baptism  of  infants, 
asserting  that,  'All  instituted  Gospel 
worship  hath  some  express  word  of 
Scripture,  but  Pedobaptism  hath  none,' 
and  for  this  heresy  was  obliged  to  re- 


18     THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS 

sign.  Charles  Cbaiincy  was  elected 
his  successor^  but  he  was  as  bad  a  her- 
etic the  other  way,  for  he  held  that 
'baptism  ought  to  be  only  by  dipping 
or  plunging  the  whole  body  under 
water,  whether  in  the  case  of  children 
or  adults.'  Quincy  Hist.  Harv.  Coll.  I. 
18.  Mather  Magnolia  I.  367."  It  is 
hardly  correct  to  say  that  Chauncy 
was  "as  bad  a  heretic"  as  Dunster  in 
Puritan  esteem.  The  head  and  front  of 
Dunster's  offending  was  the  rejection  of 
infant  baptism.  That,  not  belief  in  im- 
mersion, was  the  chief  heresy  of  the 
time. 

Moreover  Dr.  Whitsitt's  treatment 
of  such  documents  as  Dr.  Featley's 
"Epistle  Dedicatory,"  and  "Dippers 
Dipt,"  and  the  "  Jessey  Church  Records," 
upon  which  he  relies  as  his  main  sup- 
port, does  not  commend  itself  as  defen- 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS     19 

sible.  Sentences  omitted  from  Featley, 
and  from  other  authors,  not  only  destroy 
the  force  of  the  sentences  quoted,  but 
array  the  entire  documents  against  Dr. 
AVhitsitt's  position.  His  quotations  are 
terminated  sometimes  where  they  need 
to  be  in  order  to  serve  and  not  defeat 
liis  purpose.  Dr.  Whitsitt  refuses  to 
accept  the  statement  of  Dr.  Featley  that 
for  twenty  years  prior  to  1644  the  Bap- 
tists had  "  defiled  the  rivers  in  his  vicin- 
ity with  their  impure  washings,"  because 
the  statement  is  contradicted  by  his  in- 
terpretation of  the  ''  Jessey  Church 
Records.''  It  would  have  been  more 
reasonable  to  infer  from  the  explicit 
statement  of  Dr.  Featley  that  his  inter- 
pretation of  the  '' Jessey  Church  Re- 
cords "  was  erroneous,  and  needed  to  be 
revised  and  rectified. 

The    "Jessey    Church    Records,"    in 


20  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

whicli  Dr.  AVliitsitt  thinks  that  Gould, 
who  first  published  them,  included  what 
appears  to  be  a  part  of  the  so-called 
"  Kift'en  Manuscript,"  have  yet  to  be 
authenticated.  The  Records  without 
the  manuscript  have  no  l^earing  what- 
ever upon  the  question  under  discus- 
sion. The  '^  Kiffen  Manuscript "  is  of 
such  doubtful  character  that  it  may 
prove  to  be  of  no  more  value  than  the 
so-cjalled  ''  Ep worth  and  Crowle  Re- 
cords," ^^'hich  are  now  generally  be- 
lieved to  have  been  forgeries.  If  the 
"Jessey  Church  Records"  are  set  aside 
as  untrustworthy,  the  central  pillar  of 
Dr.  Whitsitt's  structure  falls  to  the 
ground.*     If  they  are  allowed  to  ^and, 

*  Since  these  pages  were  written  the  expected  has 
happened.  It  has  been  ascertained  that  the  supposed 
extracts  from  the  so-called  "  Jessey  Church  Records," 
which  are  the  corner  stone  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  theory,  to 
which  he  has  devoted  one  entire  chapter,  and  referred 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER  AVILLIAMS  21 

Dr.  AVliitsitt  builds  upon  tliem  a  super- 
structure, wliioli  tliey  are  utterly  unable 
to  bear,  wlien  tliey  are  rightly  analyzed 
and  understood. 

Tliirdl},  Dr.  Wliitsitt  lias  passed  1)\ 
documents,  the  existence  and  character 
of  which  are  well  known,  wliicli  dis- 
prove his  position  and  declare  as  plainly 
and  unmistakably  as  words  can  declare 
it,  that  tlie  immersion  of  believers  ^va8 
recognized  as  scriptural  baptism,  and 
practiced  in  England  by  those  Nvho 
were  called  Anabaptists  for  a  ^vhole 
century   and    more    prior   to    KUl.     It 

elsewhere  between  twenty  and'  thirty  times  in  liis 
small  volume,  are  not  in  the  "  Jessey  Church  Recor.ls 
The  quotations  are  from  "  An  Old  MSS.,  giving  some 
Acco.  of  those  Baptists  who  tirst  formed  themselves 
into  distinct  Congregations  or  Churches  in  London, 
found  among  certain  Papers  given  me  by  Mr.  Adams." 
It  is  certain  that  it  is  not  a  contemporaneous  record, 
but  was  written  later,  at  some  unknown  date,  by  some 
unknown  author,  and  is  of  very  uncertain  value. 
8 


22  THE  BAPTISM   OF  EOGER   WILLIAMS 

should  be  remembered  that  the  year 
1641  was  "  the  j^ear  of  jubilee"  in  Eng- 
land to  dissenting  bodies.  In  that  year 
the  Court  of  the  Star  Chamber,  and  the 
Court  of  High  Commission  were  abol- 
ished, and  the  persecuted  Christians  who 
had  been  compelled  to  worship  and  ad- 
niinister  their  rites  and  give  expression 
to  their  religious  sentiments  in  secret, 
"  covered,"  as  Dr.  Featley  says,  "like 
iire  under  the  ashes,"  now  broke  out 
into  visible  existence,  and  into  open 
and  abundant  publications  expressive  of 
their  views,  so  that  it  is  recorded  "  the 
presses  did  groan  and  s^veat  under  their 
burden."  Dr.  Featley  describes  in 
''  Dippers  Dipt,"  this  changed  condition 
of  things  in  these  words  :  "  But  of  late 
the  unhappy  distractions  which  our 
sins  have  brought  upon  us,  the  Tem- 
poral Sword  being  other  ways  em})loyed, 


THE   BAI»TISM   OF    ROGER   WILLIAMS  23 

and  the  Spiritual  locked  up  fast  in  the 
scabbard,  tliis  sect,  among  others,  hath 
so  far  presumed  upon  the  patience  of 
the  state,  that  it  hath  held  weekly  Con- 
ventions, rel)aptized  hundreds  of  men 
and  women  too^ether  in  the  tAsiliirht  in 
the  rivulets,  and  some  arms  of  the 
Thames,  and  elsewhere,  dipping  them 
over  head  and  ears."  The  dippings  of 
these  people  were  no  moi'e  ne\v  than  the 
meetings,  but  lieretofore  they  had  Ijeen 
under  the  ban  of  the  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical authorities,  which  had  striven  in 
every  way  to  suppress  them,  and  their 
worship  and  publications. 

But  such  publications  relating  to  the 
practice  of  immersion  by  the  Anabap- 
tists, are  not  \vantinu\  The  follow^no' 
publications  are  specimens,  or  prove  the 
fact  of  the  existence  of  such  genuine 
Baptist  publications. 


24  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER  AVILLIAMS 

III  1523  the  Anabaptists  in  Holland 
published  a  book,  under  the  title  :  "  The 
Sum  of  the  Holy  Scriptures/'  which  was 
translated  and  circulated  in  England. 
On  the  sal^ject  of  baptism  it  says  :  "  So 
we  are  dipped  under  a  sign  that  we  are, 
as  it  ^vere,  dead  and  buried,  as  Paul 
writes  (Kom.  6  and  Col.  2).  The  pledge 
is  given  Avhen  we  are  plunged  under  the 
water." 

Dr.  W.  II.  Pinnock,  speaking  of  the 
Anabaptists  in  England  in  1521  and 
subsequently,  says  :  "  They  rebaptized 
their  disciples,  Avhence  their  name ; 
and  taught  that  the  baptism  of  infants 
was  invalid ;  they  also  rejected  aspersion, 
holding  immersion  to  be  the  only  valid 
form  of  baptism."  (Hist.  Reform,  of  the 
Eog.  Cli.,  p.  153).  This  is  indeed  the  tes- 
timony of  a  later  hi8t(^)rian,  but  he  would 
not  have  given  it,  had  he  not  believed 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   HOGER   WILLIAMS  25 

that  it  rested  upon  conclusive,  contem- 
pomneous  evidence. 

Leonard  Buslier,  "  a  citizen  of  London 
and  a  Baptist/'  who  is  l)elieved  to  have 
piil)lished  the  earliest  known  tract  in 
the  Euo:lish  lanixiia^^e  in  favor  of  aljso- 
lute  liberty  of  conscience  (See  Masson's 
Life  of  Milton,  IIL  102),  ^vas  an  o[)en 
advocate  of  innnersion  as  early  as  1614, 
and  undoubtedly  practiced  what  he  be- 
lieved. He  said  :  "  And  such  as  shall 
willingly  and  gladly  receive  it,  (/.  e.  the 
Gospel)  He  has  commanded  to  be  l)a[)- 
tized  in  the  water;  that  is,  dipped  for 
dead  in  the  w  ater."  This  testimony  can 
not  be  discredited. 

Thomas  Grantham,  writing  in  1()78, 
when  it  is  acknowledged  by  all  that  the 
English  Baptists  practiced  innnersion, 
said  :  "  That  many  of  the  learned  have 
much    alnised    this   aue  in   tellinof  them 


26     THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS 

that  the  Anabaptists  (i.  e.  the  Baptized 
churches)  are  of  a  Late  edition,  a  new 
sect,  etc.,  when  from  their  writings  the 
clean  contrary  is  so  evident."  (Christian- 
ismiis  Primitivus,  pp.  92,  93.) 

Dr.  Thomas  Fuller  (Church  Hist,  of 
Britain,  1656,  Vol.  II.,  p.  97),  speaking 
of  the  marriage  of  Henry  YIII  and  Anne 
of  Cleves  in  1589,  says:  "Dutchmen 
flocked  faster  than  formerly  into  Eng- 
land. ^''  ^*  ^'  *  These  Anabaptists,  for 
the  main,  ai'e  but  '  Donatists  new 
dipped.^ "  Dr.  Whitsitt  does  indeed 
allude  to  this  testimony,  but  only  to 
brush  it  aside  with  the  remark,  "  Mr. 
Fuller  was  fond  of  the  alliteration  '  Don- 
atists new  dipped,'  and  employed  the 
expression  for  no  other  purpose  than 
to  indicate  that  the  Anabaptists  were 
but  Donatists  with  a  new  name."  But 
the  phrase  as  used  l)y  Fuller  is  in  quota- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF  llOGEll   ^V1LLIAMS  27 

tion  marks,  whicli  sliows  that  it  was  a 
common  designation  applied  to  tlie  Ana- 
baptists, and  was  undoubtedly  so  ap- 
plied l)ecause  indicative  of  the  practice 
of  l)()tli  sects. 

In  Edward  Barber's  "  Small  Treatise 
of  Baptisme  or  Dipping :  Wherein  is 
Clearly  Slnnved  that  the  Lord  Clirist 
Ordained  Dipping  for  those  only  that 
professe  Eepentance  and  Faith,"  a  treat- 
ise published  in  1041,  and  which  Dr. 
Whitsitt  pronounces  the  first  treatise 
published  in  pjiglish  in  favor  of  adult 
immersion,  the  author  I'efers  to  ''A 
Treatise  of  tlie  two  Sacraments  of  the 
Gospel :  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per," by  Daniel  Bogers,  printed  in  1635, 
which  had  then  reached  its  third  edi- 
tion. This  book,  which  is  a  quarto 
volume,  lias  recently  Ijeen  found  in  the 
li1)rary  of  the  Bi'itisli   Museum  l)y  Bev. 


28  THE   BAI'TIHM   OF   liOGEll   WILLIAMS 

Dr.  AY.  H.  King,  of  London,  and  is  not 
included  in  the  so-called  Kino;  Geor^re 
Pamphlets.  The  fact  that  the  book  had 
come  to  a  third  edition,  indicates  that  it 
had  probably  been  before  the  public  for 
several  years,  and  had  had  a  wide  cir- 
culation. The  author  was  a  minister  of 
the  estal)lished  church,  and  an  intense 
Pedobaptist.  But  he  Avas  also  a  firm 
and  outspoken  believer  in  immersion  as 
scriptural  baptism,  defending  it  by  the 
same  arguments  that  are  used  by  Bap- 
tists at  the  present  time.  The  rite  of 
baptism  is,  he  says,  ''  To  dippe  the  in- 
fant in  water.  And  this  I  so  averre, 
as  thinking  it  exceeding  material  to  the 
ordinance,  yea,  Avhich  both  antiquitie 
(though  with  some  additions  of  a  three- 
fold dipping,  for  the  preserving  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  impugned  Trinity  entire) 
constantly    and    without    exception    of 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGER   WILLIAMS  2i> 

countries,  hot  or  cold,  ^vitnesseth  unto  ; 
and  especially  the  constant  Word  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  first  and  last,  appro veth,  as 
a  learned  critique  upon  Matth.,  chap.  8, 
verse  11,  hath  noted  that  the  Greeke 
tongue  wants  not  an  ords  to  express  any 
other  act  as  well  as  dipping,  if  the  insti- 
tution could  bear  it.  And  sure  it  is,  if 
the  Lord  meant  not  as  (he  saitli)  that 
the  infant  should  be  dived  to  the  l^ot- 
torn,  yet  He  much  less  meant  he  should 
be  sprinkled  only  upon  the  surface. 
But  rather  betweene  both  extremes,  he 
should  be  baptized,  which  Avord  signifi- 
eth  the  true  act  of  the  minister,  to  dip  or 
dop  the  body,  or  some  part  of  it,  under 
water.  And  the  essence  of  Baptism  in 
the  very  symbolicallness  of  it  urgeth  no 
less.  For  what  resemblance  of  ingraft- 
ing, of  putting  on  of  Christ,  is  there  in 
sprinkling  i     What  typicallness  is  there 


30  THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGEE   WILLIAMS 

I  that  is  in  sprinkling  ]  of  our  descending 
into,  and  ascending  out  of  the  water, 
both  which  are  expressly  spoken  of 
Christ  in  Ilis  Baptisme  of  Jordan  ? 
What  resemblance  of  our  buriall  or  re- 
surrection with  ChiTst  is  there  in  it  ?  " 
p.  70. 

Here  we  have  an  admiral)le  defence 
of  immersion,  reference  being  made  to 
the  uniform  teaching  of  the  Sci'iptures 
and  the  custom  of  antiquity,  including 
the  peculiar  trine  baptism  of  the  Greek 
church,  the  example  of  Christ,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  itself,  and  the  ability  of 
the  Greek  language  to  express  any  other 
idea,  if  necessary,  and  in  addition,  the 
full  symbolical  meaning  of  the  sacred 
rite,  which  is  essential  to  its  proper  ad- 
ministration. Moreover  the  author  re- 
fers to  an  eminent  commentator  for 
confirmatory  evidence  of  the  correctness 


THE  BArXISM  OF  ROGEK  WILLLOIS     31 

of  his  position.  And  all  this  is  found 
in  a  volume  which  in  1635  had  readied 
its  third  edition. 

But  the  special  value  of  this  l)ook  is 
the  testimony  which  it  bears  to  the  ^vell 
lvno\vn  attitude  and  practice  of  the  Ana- 
baptists at  that  time.  The  author  has 
no  contention  with  them  as  to  the  rite 
of  l^aptism,  for  in  that  there  was  perfect 
agreement.  The  only  contention  was  as 
to  the  proper  candidates.  He  says : 
"  But  the  truth  is,  the  exercise  of  the 
churches'  baptism  is  upon  infants. 
Here  the  Anabaptists  rise  up,  pleading 
the  cori'uption  of  such  baptism  and 
urging  the  first  baptism  of  catechised 
ones,  and  confessors  of  sinne,  and  crav- 
ers  of  the  seal  upon  the  work  of  the 
ministry  foregoing  in  knowledge  and 
faith,  which  can  be  incident  only  to 
adultes,    or   groAvne    ones ;    the}'    allege 


32  THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGER   AYILLIAMS 

that  Ave  seale  to  a  blank,  to  no  cove- 
nant, and  therefore  it  is  a  nnllitie." 
p.  71. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  this 
testimony  is  from  the  pen  of  an  enemy ; 
but  it  is  none  tlie  less  valuable.  It  mav 
be  of  greater  value  on  that  account. 
The  views  of  the  Anabaptists  in  the 
matter  of  faith  and  religious  liberty 
were  often  disclosed  by  the  arguments 
which  Avere  published  against  them,  and 
the  enactments  which  Avere  passed  for 
their  punishment  and  suppression. 

We  have  dwelt  longer  upon  the  gen- 
eral historical  question  than  we  intended. 
But  it  seemed  necessary  to  present  facts 
enough  to  show  that  Dr.  Whitsitt's  basis 
for  his  inference  as  to  the  baptism  of 
Roger  Williams  is  without  any  warrant, 
and  has  l^een  presented  to  the  public 
upon  an  incomplete    investigation,   and 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER  WILLIAMS  33 

an  improper  use  of  authorities,  ^vhieli 
lias  undoubtedly  been  the  result  in  part 
of  a  too  l)]ind  dependence  upon  (]Uota- 
tions  culled  1)y  Dr.  Dexter.  Further 
investigation  ^v\\l  unijuestionably  bring 
to  light  additional  evidence  of  the  fact 
that  immersion  was  pi'acticed  l)y  the 
English  Baptists  long  before  the  year 
1641,  so  that  it  \vi\\  be  to  all  historians, 
as  it  is  now  to  most,  not  a  probability 
within  the  limits  of  some  nncertainty, 
but  an  established  and  accredited  his- 
torical fact. 

But  upon  the  supposition  that  Dr. 
AV^hitsitt  had  proved  beyond  a  perad- 
venture  his  theory  in  reference  to  the 
late  introduction  of  immersion  among 
Baptists  in  England,  his  inference  as  to 
the  non-inunersion  of  Boo'er  AMUiams 
would  by  no  means  follow,  and  such 
arguments  as  he  has  been  aljle  to  adduce 


34  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER  WILLIAMS 

do  not  give  the  appearance  of  plausibil- 
ity to  his  inference. 

Roofer  Williams  has  liiven  to  the 
Avorld  abundant  evidence  that  he  was 
not  dependent  upon  human  precedent, 
that  he  was  conscientious  in  his  convic- 
tions and  that  lie  had  the  courage  of 
them  in  the  face  of  persistent  and  violent 
opposition,  that  he  had  in  him  the  stuff 
out  of  which  pioneers  are  made,  and  re- 
foi'mers,  the  inti'oducers  of  new  customs 
and  principles  or  the  recoverers  of  old 
truths  and  customs  which  had  been  lost 
sight  of  and  fallen  into  disuse.  If  im- 
mersion was  to  be  restored  to  the  church 
of  Christ,  after  years  of  neglect,  as  the 
outward  symbol  of  a  spiritual  faith  and 
the  initial  rite  of  Christianity,  forever 
sacred  and  binding,  Roger  A\'illiams  was 
pre-eminently  the  man  to  assist  or  to 
lead  in  such  a  movement. 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS     35 

No  man  in  modeni  history  has  been 
(juicker  tliaii  lie  to  detect  the  "  new  oc- 
casions "  which  'Heach  new  duties." 
To  say,  as  Dr.  \\  hitsitt  says,  that  he 
was  the  child  of  his  age,  as  Luther  and 
Zwingli  were  the  product  of  their  age, 
and  because  they  with  preferences  at 
first  for  immersion,  "  yiehled  to  circum- 
stances which  they  were  j)^^verless  to 
control,"  and  abandoned  their  prefer- 
ences, that  therefoie  lioger  \\  illiams, 
who  though  "  likewise  a  very  important 
])ersonage,  was  not  great  enough  to  stand 
above  the  common  lot  of  humanity,"  did 
not  probably  act  out  any  convictions  in 
reference  to  immersion  which  he  may 
have  had,  is  an  attempt  to  prejudge  the 
whole  question,  and  prejudice  the  deci- 
sion in  favor  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  theory. 

Indeed'  it  proves  too  much,  if  it 
proves  anything,  for  it  proves  that  Ed- 


36     THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS 

ward  Barber,  and  Richard  Blount,  and 
Mark  Lucar,  and  all  the  other  Baptists 
contemporaneous  with  Williams,  men 
confessedly  inferior  and  less  conspicious 
than  he,  were  less  the  product  of  their 
age,  and  stronger  than  he  to  break  away 
from  prevailing  tendencies  and  customs. 
Such  a  position  carries  its  absurdity  on 
its  face.  Any  man  who  has  made  him- 
self familiar  with  the  life  of  Roger  Wil- 
liams, and  has  studied  his  character,  and 
estimated  his  achievements,  will  feel 
that  such  treatment  of  him  shows  an 
utter  failure  to  •  appreciate  the  man 
whose  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  courageously  proclaimed  and 
successfully  illustrated,  have  been  the 
supreme  moulding  influence  in  making 
this  nation  what  it  is. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  the  oft 
quoted  encomiums  which  statesmen  and 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   PiOGEK   WILLIAMS  7,1 

liistorians  have  paid  to  the  memon-  and 
services  of  the  2:reat  founder  of  the  first 
civil  government  in  the  world  whose 
corner  stone  was  absolute  soul  liberty. 
To  infer  that  such  a  man,  the  independ- 
ent thinker,  the  conscientious  actor,  the 
courageous  pioneer,  could  not  have  in- 
terpreted the  Scriptures  for  himself,  and 
reached  a  conclusion  independently  of 
other  meirs  thinking  or  practice,  in  a 
Avord,  to  infer  that  he  couhl  not  have 
been  in  advance  by  the  little  period  of 
two  or  tliree  years  of  a  few  liunible, 
almost  unknown  men  in  London,  is  the 
height  of  unwisdom.  Any  inference 
from  their  alleged  practice  to  A\^illiams' 
non-immersion  is  a  palpable  no/i  seqnittir. 
Moreover,  Avhatever  may  have  been 
the  condition  in  England,  when  Dr. 
AYliitsitt  aims  to  create  the  impression 
that    belief    in    the    immersion   even  of 

4 


38     THE  BAPTISM  OF  KOGER  WILLIAMS 

adults  was  a  thing  iinknown  in  tliis 
country  at  tbat  very  time,  he  must  have 
overlooked  certain  clear  and  positive 
evidence,  with  which  he  shouhl  have 
been  familiar.  Having  (quoted  from 
Gov.  Winthrop  the  account  of  the 
arrival  of  Rev.  Charles  Chauncy  (sub- 
sequently President  of  Harvard  College) 
at  Plymouth  in  1688,  and  of  the  dispute 
Avhich  arose  between  him  and  the  church 
as  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  be  claiming 
that  they  "  ought  to  be  dipped  and  not 
sprinkled,"  Dr.  Whitsitt  adds :  '^  The 
immersion  of  adults  was  practically  a 
lost  art  in  England  and  America  at  this 
time,  and  it  is  cbnceiv^able  that  Mr. 
Chauncy  did  not  contemplate  the  im- 
mersion of  adults."  (It  may  be  said,  in 
a  parenthesis,  that  a  minister  who  l)e- 
lieved  in  the  immersion  of  children  can- 
not be  conceived  of  as  not  belie vini^:  in 


THE   UAl'TISM    U¥   liUGEli    WILLIA^MS  ^'J 

the  iniiiiersioii  of  adults,  if  anv  \A-ere 
foimcl  wlio  liad  not  been  baptized.  If 
his  conscience  compelled  him  to  immerse 
children,  he  wouh.l  l)e  little  likely  to 
alter  the  rite  for  converted  parents.) 
Dr.  A\  hitsitt  continues:  "If  the  record 
can  be  depended  upon,  his  contention 
related  to  the  dipping  of  infants  exclu- 
sively, and  not  to  the  dipping  of  adults. 
The  baptism  of  adults  for  Avliich  Mi*. 
AMlliams  began  to  contend  in  the  spring 
of  1G39  was  so  widely  different  from  the 
baptism  of  infants,  for  which  Chauncy 
^vas  strivino-  that  the  act  of  immersion 
in  the  one  case  need  not  to  have  sui!;- 
gested  the  .  act  oi  inunersion  in  the 
other." 

This  is  Dr.  AMiitsitt's  interpretation 
of  Chauncy 's  positi(>n  and  all  he  has  to 
say  about  that  suggestive  incident  at 
Plymouth  in   1  ().H8.     An  educated  man, 


ttO  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGEli   WILLIAMS 

who  had  just  arrived  from  Eiighiiid,  and 
was  fit  to  hid  the  President  of  a  College, 
someho^^■  had  come  to  Ijelieve  in  the 
immersion  of  infants  ;  but  that  contained 
no  suii^o-estion  of  the  immersion  of  adults, 
and  it  is  implied  that  it  was  an  excep- 
tional case,  and  had  no  significance  and 
no  bearing  whatever  on  the  (piestion 
under  discussion  !  Indeed,  Dr.  Whitsitt 
imagines  that  Ivoger  ^^'illia•ms  "may 
have  felt  a  prejudice  both  against  the 
man  and  his  contention,"  which  is  purely 
a  gratuitous  imagination,  for  Dr.  Wliit- 
sitt  knows  nothino;  about  it.  Some  one 
else  would  be  equally  justified  in  imag- 
ining that  "  for  aught  we  know  to  the 
contrary  "  Roger  Williams  may  have  r,e- 
joiced  in  Mi*.  Chauncy\s  contention  as  a 
step  in  the  riglit  direction,  as  a  move- 
ment to  brino^  about  the  restoration  of 
the    primitive     baptism     iu    ^vhich    we 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   EOGER   AYILLIAMS  41 

know  he  conscientiously  believed.  But 
imaginations,  i>vo  or  con^  are  not  liistor}^ 
Dr.  AVhitsitt  terminates  Lis  quotation 
from  Gov.  Wintlirop  in  the  middle  of  a 
sentence,  as  follows:  "The  magistrates 
and  (^thei-  elders  there,  and  the  most  of 
the  people,  Avithstood  the  receiving  of 
that  practice."  Whatever  may  have 
been  Dr.  AVhitsitt's  motive  in  thus  dis- 
membering the  sentence,  his  action  is 
most  unfortunate  for  the  truth,  for  he 
omits  to  (piote  language  which  discloses 
the  nature  and  reason  of  their  opposi- 
tion. The  complete  sentence  reads  as 
follo\\-s:  "  The  mamstrates  and  the  other 
elders  there,  and  the  most  of  the  people, 
withstood  the  receiving  of  that  practice, 
not  for  itself  so  much,  as  for  fear  of 
worse  consequences,  as  the  annihilating 
our  baptism."  (Winthrop's  History  of 
New  England  from  10:>o  to  1649,  \'ol. 


42  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGEri   WILLIAMS 

L,  [).  ^^)98).  In  other  words,  tlie  opposi- 
tion was  not  so  mucli  against  tlie  rite  of 
infant  immersion  in  itself  considered. 
That  wonhi  have  been  tolerated,  if 
Chauncy  desired  to  practice  it,  and 
others  desired  to  have  him  do  so.  But 
Channcy  declared  that  "  sprinkling  was 
unlawful,"  and  not  to  l)e  tolerated,  and 
therefore  his  contention  was  a  denial  of 
the  validity  of  their  baptism,  and  if 
yielded  to  would  have  put  an  end  to 
infant  sprinkling  among  them.  That 
this  is  the  true  understanding  of  the 
matter  is  evident  from  the  moi'e  ex- 
plicit account  of  Gov.  Bradford,  which 
Dr.  Whitsitt  has  overlooked.  He  says 
(History,  pp.  882,  883)  :  ''  But  ther  fell 
out  some  difference  about  baptising,  he 
holding  it  ought  only  to  be  by  diping, 
and  putting  y^  whole  bod}^  under  water, 
and  tliat  sprinkling  was  unlaw  full.    The 


THE   BAPTISM    OF   ROGER  WILLIAMS  43 

church  yeelded  that  iriimersion  or  dip- 
ping was  lawful!,  but  in  this  could  |  cold  | 
country  not  so  conveniente.  But  they 
could  not,  nor  durst  not  yeeld  to  him 
in  this,  that  sprinkling  (which  all  y^ 
churches  of  Christ  doe  for  y^  most  parte 
use  at  this  day)  was  unlawfull,  tfe  an 
liumane  invention,  as  y*^  same  was  prest ; 
luit  they  were  ^villing  to  yeeld  to  him 
as  far  as  v^^'  could  tt  to  y®  utmost ;  and 
Avere  contented  to  suifer  him  to  prac- 
tice as  he  was  perswaded ;  and  when 
he  came  to  minister  that  ordinance,  he 
miofht  so  doe  it  to  anv  \^  did  desire  it 
in  y^  way,  provided  he  could  peaceably 
suffer  Mr.  Eeinor  |  the  pastor  with  whom 
he  \vas  associated]  and  such  as  desired 
to  have  theii's  otherwise  baptised  b}^ 
him,  by  sprinkling  or  powering  on  of 
water  upon  them ;  so  as  ther  might  l)e 
no  disturl)ance  in  v*^  church  hereaboute. 


44  THE   liAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

But    lie   said  he   could   not   yeeld    her- 
nnto." 

We  submit  that  this  account  of  the 
Plymouth  (Tovernor,  which  in  no  way 
contradicts,  l)ut  only  explains  the  ac- 
count of  the  Massachusetts  Governor 
^vhen  fully  given,  presents  an  entirely 
diiferent  aspect  of  the  dispute  between 
Mr.  Chauncy  and  the  church  in  Ply- 
mouth from  the  one  Dr.  Whitsitt  has 
given,  and  reveals  a  condition  of  things 
which  he  has  failed  to  present.  The 
Plymouth  church  was  not  opposed  to 
the  practice  of  immersion.  Indeed,  it 
ackno\\'ledged  that  it  was  lawful  bap- 
tism, l)ut  on  account  of  the  climate  was 
not  so  ^'convenient"  as  sprinkling.  It 
confessed  that  there  Avere  some  churches 
that  still  practiced  it,  and  was  ^silling 
that  Mr.  CUiauncy  should  practice  it, 
provided   that   sprinkling    could    l)e   re- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROQEll   WILLIAMS  45 

ttiiiied  l)y  tliose  persons  who  desired  it. 
Those  \vh(>  resisted  Mr.  Chaiiney''s  con- 
tention Avere  actuated  by  the  fear  of  the 
conse(|nenees  wliich  might  ensue — viz., 
that  their  own  Ijaptisni  might  ])econie 
null  and  void,  or,  in  tlieir  hmguage, 
"  annihilated.'' 

Dr.  AVIiitsitt  in  his  summary  disposi- 
tion of  tlie  matter  implies  that  that  Avas 
the  l)eo'innino'  and  the  end  of  it,  and 
that  the  little  flurry  Avas  confined  to 
the  Plymouth  church,  and  A\'as  hardly 
thouo'ht  of  in  all  the  rest  of  the  colo- 
nies ;  indeed,  he  says  that  ]\[r.  (1ianncy''s 
"sentiments  were  (piite  extraordinary 
among  persons  of  the  Puritan  school." 
The  facts  were  altoo'ether  different. 
Rev.  ^Tr.  Partridge  of  Duxl)ury  and 
other  neighl)oring  ministers  Avere  called 
in  to  argue  the  points  in  disjmte  Avith 
Mr.   Chauncy.      AVhen    they  liad    failed 


46  THE   BArnSM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

to  convince  liini,  the  (|uestion  was  8u1)- 
niittecl  to  all  the  churches,  not  only  in 
the  Massachnsetts  Bay,  but  in  the  Con- 
necticat  and  New  Haven  colonies.  The 
little  flurry  swept  over  all  New  Eng- 
land, and  although  the  answers  returned 
from  the  churches  are  reported  to  have 
been  confirmatory  of  the  position  of  the 
Plymouth  church,  the  whole  ecclesiasti- 
cal structure  of  the  New  Woi'ld  was 
agitated  by  the  discussion  of  the  ([ues- 
tion  of  the  validity  of  immersion  as 
scriptural  baptism. 

It  is  true  that,  so  far  as  the  records 
show,  the  discussion  thus  far  was  limited 
to  infant  immersion.  But,  if  it  was,  it 
did  not  long  remain  so  ;  indeed,  there 
Avere  neigh])()rs  then  Avho  took  broader 
and  inoi-e  sci'iptural  views.  Mr.  Chauii- 
cy  remained  at  Plymouth  nearly  three 
years,   and    tlien    l)ecame   pastor   of   the 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGER   WILLIAMS  47 

cliurch  ill  Scitiuite  in  KUl.  Gov.  AVin- 
tlirop  says  (History  of  New  England, 
Vol.  IL,  p.  86)  :  "  Mr.  Cliauncy  of  Scitn- 
ate  persevered  in  his  opinion  of  dipping 
in  baptism,  and  practiced  accordingly, 
first  upon  two  of  Lis  o^vn,  which  l)eing 
in  very  cold  ^veather,  one  of  them 
swooned  away."  Here  he  remained  as 
pastor  until  1054,  when  he  was  called 
to  the  Presidency  of  Harvard  College — 
jMr.  Dnnster,  the  retired  President,  tak- 
ing his  place  as  ])astor  of  the  church  in 
Scituate.  This  church  had  ali*eady  had 
a  noteworthy  history.  The  first  pastor, 
John  Lothrop,  was  pastor  of  the  fa- 
mous Southwark  Conf^reffiitional  Church 
in  London,  from  which  the  first  Pai'tic- 
ular  Baptist  Church  under  John  Spils- 
burv  had  seceded  in  lB3o.  The  year 
following,  he  and  about  thirty  members 
emigrated  to  this  conntry  and    planted 


48  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROaER   WILLIAMS 

themselves  at  Scitiiate.  Here  they  were 
again  divided  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
the  Baptist  leaven  not  having  all  seceded 
in  London.  In  1639  the  pastor  and  a 
portion  of  the  cluirch  withdrew  and 
settled  in  Barnstable,  ^vhere  it  is  re- 
corded there  were  subsequently  "great 
divisions "  on  the  question  of  baj^tism. 
The  crossing  of  the  ocean,  and  the 
changing  of  habitations  in  the  New 
World,  did  not  destro}^  the  indestruct- 
ible Baptist  leaven.  Mr.  Chauncy  be- 
came Mr.  Lothrop's  successor  as  pastor 
of  that  part  of  the  church  remaining  at 
Scituate.  In  this  church  the  sentiments 
of  tlie  members  Avere  far  from  being 
harmonious,  and  all  views  seem  to  have 
been  tolerated.  It  is  reported  that 
"  many  members  held  to  immersion, 
some  to  adult  immersion  only,  and 
some   to   immersion   of    infants   as   well 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGEIl   WILLIAMS  49 

as  adults.""  Whatever  may  have  been 
Mr.  Chaiiucy's  exact  views  at  Plynioutli 
he  seems  to  have  been  at  Scituate  in 
1641  an  (►})en  advocate  of  adult  immer- 
sion as  well  as  infant.  The  followinir 
(juotation  is  from  the  history  of  the 
town  :  "  There  seemed  to  be  three  par- 
ties in  Scituate  at  this  time ;  one  of 
Avhich  held  to  infant  sprinkling,  another 
to  adult  immersion  exclusively,  and  a 
third  (of  Avhich  was  Mr.  Chauncy)  to 
immersion  of  infants  as  Avell  as  adults." 
A\  e  have  dwelt  at  length  upon  this 
Pl\ni()uth  dis[)ute  and  what  followed, 
because  of  the  proof  which  is  furnished 
therel)y  of  the  conditi(ni  of  faith  and 
practice  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic. 
A  belief  in  immersion  as  scriptural  bap- 
tism .was  not  sucli  a  new  thing  under 
the  sun  as  Dr.  Whitsitt  would  have  us 
think,  nor  was  adult  immersion  an  un- 


50  ■        THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

heard  of  tiling,  "a  lost  art  in  England 
and  America  "  at  that  time.  Well  has 
Dr.  H.  8.  Bui-rage  asked,  ''  How  came 
Mr.  Chauncy  to  hold  such  an  opinion,  if 
immersion  was  unkno^vn  among  the 
Baptists  of  England  until  1641?  And 
certainly  if  Mr.  Chauncy  in  1638  re- 
jected sprinkling  and  insisted  upon  im- 
mersion as  scriptural  baptism,  why  ma^^ 
not  Roarer  Williams  and  his  associates 
at  Providence  have  done  the  same  in 
the  following  year  ?" 

But  it  is  more  to  our  pi*esent  purpose 
to  limit  our  thought  to  this  country,  and 
to  say  that  here  a  belief  in  immersion 
was  held  not  by  one  person  alone,  as 
Dr.  AMiitsitt  would  have  us  think,  but 
by  many,  and  that  belief  in  adult  im- 
mersion was  accepted  by  not  a  fe\v  per- 
sons in  the  Plymonth  Colony  at  about 
the  same  time  that  Roger  Williams  and 


THE    BAPTISM    OF   IIOGER    WILLIA3IS  51 

his  companions  are  believed  to  have  car- 
ried that  belief  into  practice  at  Provi- 
dence. Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  if 
there  were  no  ad  nit  immersions  at 
Scitnate  at  that  early  date  it  nuist  have 
Ijeen  becanse  there  were  no  candidates, 
and  certainly  not  because  of  any  lack  of 
faith  in  the  scriptural ness  of  the  rite,  or 
reluctance  of  disposition  to  administer 
it. 

A  correct  view  of  the  historic  set  tin  2f, 
of  the  known  condition  of  thing's,  will 
make  the  immersion  of  Roger  AMlliams 
appear  the  most  natural  and  probable 
thino-  in  the  world.  The  thouo;hts  of 
the  new  ^\■orld  were  all  alive  on  Baptist 
cjuestions,  and  its  literature  was  satura- 
ted with  tlieir  discussion.  The  whole 
atmosphere  was  iilled  with  Baptist  ozone. 
Baptist  sentiments  were  imported  with 
almost  every  ship  from  England,     (lov- 


52  THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGEH   AVILLIAMS 

ernor  Winslow,  speaking  of  the  Anabap- 
tists in  1646  said,  '^  AVe  have  some  livini>; 
among  lis,  nay,  some  in  our  churches  of 
that  judgment."  Cotton  Mather  con- 
fessed "  Some  few  of  these  people  have 
been  among  the  planters  of  New  Eng- 
land from  the  beginning."  Not  only 
did  all  the  churches  consider  and  respond 
to  the  appeal  of  the  Plymouth  Church 
as  to  its  position  on  the  (juestion  of  im- 
mersion, as  we  have  seen,  but  almost 
every  man  who  could  wield  a  pen,  seems 
to  have  drawn  it  against  the  prevailing 
Anabaptistic  eiTors.  John  Lothro^),  in 
1644,  published  "A  short  Form  of  Cate- 
cliisme  of  the  Doctrine  of  Baptisme. 
In  use  in  these  Times  that  are  so  full  of 
Questions."  In  the  same  year,  Thomas 
Shepard  ^vent  to  press,  urged  by  ''  the 
increase  of  Anabaptists,  rigid  Separa- 
tists,  Antinomians   and   Familists."     In 


THE   BArTISM   OF   IIOGER   WILLIAMS  53 

1()45,  George  Philips,  of  AVatertowii, 
in  1647,  John  Cotton,  of  Boston,  and 
Nathaniel  Ward,  of  Ipswich,  in  1648, 
Thomas  Cobbet,  of  Lynn,  and  in  1649, 
Thomas  Hooker,  all  pnblished  treatises 
dealing  Avith  the  question  of  baptism 
and  its  proper  candidates,  and  aimed  at 
the  Anabaptists,  in  which  the  severest 
epithets  were  freely  employed.  And 
these  are  but  samples  which  have  l)een 
preserved  of  a  vigorous  literature,  called 
forth  by  the  supposed  exigencies  of  the 
time. 

It  is  true  that  Anabaptism  was  a  thing 
of  degrees,  and  did  not  always  mean  the 
same  thing,  and  in  no  instance  meant 
the  horrible  and  dangerous  things  which 
many  then  supposed  it,  and  some  still 
suppose  it,  to  mean.  Sometimes  it  meant 
simply  belief  in  religious  libei'ty,  the 
separation  of  Church  and  State,  a  prin- 


54  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

ciple  which  originated  with  the  x\iiabap- 
tists,  and  characterized  them  always  and 
everywhere ;  most  frequently  it  meant 
anti-pedo-l)aptism ;  then  it  came  to  mean, 
and  that  very  early,  in  Switzerland  and 
Germany,  in  Holland  and  England  and 
America,  re-baptism  in  the  form  of  adult 
immersion.  It  was  of  the  nature  of  an 
evolution.  All  great  movements  are 
born  by  natural  or  supernatural  pro- 
cesses. They  have  their  antecedents, 
their  ancestry.  They  come  "  in  the  ful- 
ness of  time."  It  is  impossible  to  account 
for  the  great  Hame  of  Baptist  principles 
and  practice  that  bui'st  into  view  in 
England  on  and  after  1641,  when  the 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  restrictions  were 
removed,  without  believing  that  the 
same  principles  and  practice  had  been 
slumbering  beneath  the  ashes  for  years 
before.     It  is  im])ossible  to  account  for 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS     55 

the  origin  of  distinctive  Baptist  clmrclies 
in    this    country    without    taking    into 
consideration    the    sluinl)erini>:    embers 
^^'lnch  were  transported  from    England 
and   Wales,  and  the  increasing  Baptist 
sentiment  ^vhich  manifested  itself  from 
the  beginning  of  our  colonies.     It  should 
not  be    forgotten    that   the  authorities, 
again  and  again,  proceeded  against  men 
and  women  who  \vere  accused  of  holding: 
Baptist    sentiments,    and    we    have    the 
record  of    their  arrests,    imprisonments, 
fines  and    Avhippings.      These    persecu- 
tions began  as  early  as  1635,  and  \vere 
inHicted     under    the    name    of    law    in 
many  places,  in  Dorchester,  Weymouth, 
Rehoboth,     Salem,     WatertoAvn,     Hing- 
ham,   Dover,    X.    H.,    and    S^vampscott. 
So  numerous  were  these  offenders  that 
in  1644,  the  well  known  intolerant  law 
against   the    Anabaptists    was    enacted. 


JAMES  S.  SLATER, 

8LATERSVILLE, 

RHODE  ISLAND. 


56  THE  BAPTI8M   OF   EOGER   WILLIAMS 

The  woods  of  the  new  \\'orld  ^vere  ap- 
parently full  of  them. 

In  proof  of  the  dilfusion  of  Anabap- 
tist sentiments,  and  the  increasing  num- 
ber of  those  who  hehl  tliem,  may  be 
quoted  the  language  of  Thomas  Hooker 
of  Connecticut  to  Thomas  Shepard  of 
Cambridg^e  in  1646:  ''I  like  those  Ana- 
baptists  and  ther  opinion  every  day 
worse  than  other  ....  unlesse  you  be 
very  watchful  you  will  have  an  army 
in  the  field  before  you  know  how  to 
prepare  or  oppose."  It  may  be  added 
that  when  John  Wilson,  who  was  the 
colleague  of  John  Cotton  for  twenty 
years,  was  near  his  end,  he  was  asked 
for  what  sins  this  land  ^n  as  being  vis- 
ited by  God'S  judgments,  and  his  an- 
swer was,  ^'  Separatism,  Anabaptism  and 
Korahism."  A  contemporary  eulogist 
characterized    AA^ilson   in   these   ^vords  : 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   EUGER   WILLIAMS  57 

"  Firm  stood  be  'gainst  familist, 
And  Antinomian  spirit  strong  : 
He  never  loved  the  Sep'ratist, 

Nor  yet  the  xlnabaptists'  throng." 

Ivoo^er  Williains  was  in  some  true 
sense  the  eliilcl  of  his  age — tlie  product 
of  many  influences;  and  we  refer  not 
now  to  his  great  achievement  as  tlje 
founder  of  relio-ious  ]i])ertv  in  this 
country,  altliough  this  was  true  of  liim 
in  that  respect,  but  to  liis  j^osition  as  an 
avowed  Baptist  and  the  founder  of  the 
first  churcli  of  that  denomination  in 
America.  He  Avas  first  a  Puritan,  then 
a  Separatist,  then  one  of  the  first  fruits 
of  tlie  Baptist  liai'vest.  He  liad  known 
Bev.  Samuel  Howe,  a  Baptist  pastor  in 
London,  and  his  acquaintance  with  him 
must  have  been  before  he  came  to  this 
country,  for  Mr.  Howe  died  in  1641, 
and   to   him   he   paid   in   his  ''Hireling 


58  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

Ministry "  a  glowing  and  affectionate 
tribute  as  "  an  excellent  textnaiy  or 
Scripture  learned  man,"  of  which  he 
must  have  had  abundant  evidence  in 
his  expositions  of  the  truth  and  the 
ordinances  of  the  gospel,  to  which  lie 
had  listened.  Mr.  AVilliams  was  also 
acquainted  with  the  Dutch  language, 
which  for  well  nigh  a  century  had  been 
consecrated  to  liberty  and  liberal  ideas, 
and  whose  possessors  were  the  first 
modern  promulgators  of  Baptist  doc- 
trine and  practice,  in  the  sixteen  century, 
throughout  the  eastern  counties  of 
England.  When  he  reached  Boston  in 
1681  he  was  found  to  be  too  rigid  a 
Separatist  to  be  allowed  to  remain  there. 
At  Plymouth,  two  years  later,  his  con- 
duct and  teachings  aroused  the  appre- 
hension that  he  was  running  ''  the  same 
course  of  rigid  sepai'ation  and  anabap- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ItOGl^l   WILLIAMS  51) 

tistiy  wliicli  Mr.  Joliii  Smyth,  the  se- 
Baptist  at  Amsterdam,  liad  done.''  And 
when,  three  years  later  still,  he  was  driven 
out  of  Massachusetts,  and  found  freedom 
in  Rhode  Island,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at  that  his  growing  Baptist  tendencies 
should  I'ipen  into  the  visible  fruit  of  a 
formal  profession,  and  his  conscientious 
convictions  should  lead  him  to  desire 
for  himself,  and  to  re-establish  for  those 
of  like  faith  in  this  Xew  AVorld,  the 
primitive  Christian  rite,  ^vhich  Christ 
intended  should  be  observed  in  all 
lands  and  a^'es.  Indeed,  in  view  of 
his  associations  and  progressive  devel- 
opment along  Baptist  lines,  in  view  of 
his  personal  characteristics  and  eminent 
fitness  to  l)e  a  leader  of  men  and 
founder  of  institutions,  in  view  of  his 
acknowledo-ed  convictions  as  to  the 
nature  and  place  of  Christian   Ijaptism, 


60  THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGEll   AVILLIAMS 

it  would  have  been  occasion  for  the 
greatest  wonder,  if  Roger  Williams  had 
not  been  immersed. 

It  should  be  remarked  at  this  point 
that,  after  all,  Roger  Williams  was  only 
a  very  little  in  advance  of  his  contem- 
poraries in  this  country,  men  less  con- 
spicuous and  forceful  in  character  than 
he,  and  AN'ith  whose  mental  development 
we  are  less  familiar.  According:  to  the 
statement  of  Benedict,  several  persons 
attempted  in  the  year  1639,  "to  found 
a  Baptist  church  "  in  AVeymouth,  with 
Robert  Lenthall,  as  pastor.  This  move- 
ment, it  is  said,  was  suppressed  by 
imprisonment,  Avhippiiig  and  1)anisli- 
ment.  If  the  statement  is  to  be  ac- 
cepted, (it  rests  on  the  authority  of 
AVinthrop  I.  346)  the  movement  in 
Weymouth  ^^'as  almost  exactl}^  syn- 
chronous w^ith  the  movement  i]i  Provi- 


THE   ]iAPTISM   OF   llOGEK   AVILLIAMS  Gl 

deuce.  There  is  some  doubt  as  to  the 
trustworthiness  of  the  statement,  but  it 
has  never  been  disproved,  and  is  not  so 
improbable  as  that  the  Providence  move- 
ment was  not  a  Baptist  movement  at 
the  be^innino'.  The  traditional  date 
of  the  origin  of  the  First  Baptist  church 
in  XcAvport  is  only  five  or  six  years  later 
tlian  that  of  the  Providence  church,  and 
if  it  is  true,  as  has  been  generally  l)e- 
lieved,  tliat  Dr.  John  Clarke  became  a 
Baptist  through  the  example  and  teach- 
ing, of  Roger  Williams,  it  only  shows 
that  his  mind  and  tlie  minds  of  his 
associates  were  ri[)ening  for  the  decisive 
step  of  complete  separation  from  their 
ohi  ecclesiastical  affiliations,  and  entrance 
upon  a  new  church  life.  It  is  not  nec- 
essarv  to  connect  the  origin  oi  the  Xew- 
port  church  ^\  ith  the  arrival  of  Mark 
Lucar,  who  had  been  a  mendjer  of  the 


62  THE   liAPTISM   OF   KOGEK   >YILLIAMS 

First  Particular  Baptist  Chureli  in  Lon- 
don, unless  a  man  is  a  slave  to  the  fis:- 
nient  of  a  Baptist  succession,  and  is 
determined  to  dispute  at  all  cost  tlie 
reality  or  the  validity  of  the  baptism  of 
Roger  Williams  and  his  companions. 
Tlie  date  of  the  arrival  of  Lucar  is 
absolutel}^  unknown.  The  first  positive 
record  we  have  of  his  presence,  notwith- 
standing the  most  persistent  searching, 
is  in  1648.  There  w^ere  influences  enough 
at  work,  and  material  enongh  at  hand, 
Avithout  Lucar,  to  organize  a  Baptist 
chui'ch  at  Newport. 

Only  live  years  later,  in  UU9,  there 
Avere  found  at  Behoboth  or  Seekonk, 
thirteen  or  fourteen  persons  who  wei'e 
\vaiting  to  receive  New  Testament  bap- 
tism on  profession  of  their  faith  in 
Christ,  and  when  baptized,  constituted 
a  Baptist  society  in  that  place,      \yithin 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ItOGEIl   AVILLIAMS  63 

the  limits  of  the  same  town  in  1662,  at 
Wannamoiset,  afterward  called  Swansea, 
Elder  John  Miles  and  liis  .companions 
settled.  They  were  a  company  of  Welsh 
Baptists  who  had  been  driven  from  tlieir 
o^V'n  land  by  persecntion,  and  sought 
freedom  in  this  new  world.  They 
formed  the  hrst  Baptist  chnrch  in  Avhat 
is  now  the  State  of  Massachusetts.  Mr. 
Miles  had  studied  at  Brasenose  College, 
Oxford,  and  ^^as  highly  respected  and 
useful  in  the  new  community,  though 
bitterly  opposed  by  the  authorities.  He 
not  only  preached  in  tlie  wJiole  region, 
but  in  1674,  he  was  appointed  school- 
master for  the  town  at  a  salary  of  forty 
pounds  per  annum,  ''  for  teaching  gram- 
mar, rhetoric,  arithmetic,  and  the  tongues 
of  Latin,  Greek  and  Hebre^v,  also  to 
read  Eno^lish  and  to  write."  And  in 
1665,  but  little  more  than    twentv-five 


BJ:     THE  BAPTISM  OF  KOGEK  WILLIAMS 

years  after  the  Providence  niovement, 
a  Baptist  cliurcli  ^vas  oi'gaiiized  in  Bos- 
ton itself.  .  Here  in  the  very  heart  of 
tlie  Massachusetts  Bay,  and  at  tlie  head- 
quarters of  the  most  violent  opposition 
and  legislation,  those  who  held  Baptist 
sentiments  had  slowly  increased  in  num- 
bers, and  gathered  strength  for  outward 
organized  action.  To  be  sure  they  were 
compelled  for  a  time  to  worship  in  tlie 
suburbs,  and  were  lined,  imprisoned,  dis- 
franchised and  banished,  and  when  their 
meeting  house  was  l^uilt  within  the  city 
limits,  its  doors  were  nailed  up  against 
them  by  the  authority  of  the  court;  but 
the  cdiurch  had  in  it  that  sti'eniiih  of 
faith  and  maturity  of  conviction  that 
enabled  it  to  live  and  thrive. 

All  these  movements,  following  each 
other  in  rapid  succession,  and  harmonious 
in  all  essential  features,  prove  that  the 


THE  BAPTISM   OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS  65 

time  had  come  for  the  open  avowal  and 
defence  of  Baptist  practice  and  princi- 
ples. The  genuineness  of  the  baptism 
of  one  church  can  be  questioned  no 
more  tlian  that  of  tlie  others.  No  one 
of  them  has  ever  modified  or  questioned 
its  own  baptism,  or  questioned  that  of 
its  neio'hbors.  They  were  all  parts  of 
that  great  religious  uprising;  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  ^\  hicli  burst  through  tlie 
iron  walls  of  old  creeds  and  customs,  and 
the  solid  masonry  of  ecclesiastical  pol- 
ities and  governments,  and  planted  itself 
squarely  and  fully  upon  the  principle  of 
loyalty  to  the  supreme  authority  of 
Christ  and  his  Word.  Xo  man  of  that 
time  acce[)ted  this  principle  more  heart- 
ilv  and  intellio^entlv  than  the  founder  of 
the  First  Baptist  Church  in  Providence. 
So  much  for  the  probabilities  or  the 
improbal)ilities,  as  gro^ving  out  of  the 


6G  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

actual  condition  of  the  times,  and  the 
associations,  the  tendencies,  the  known 
characteristics  of  Roger  Williams. 

We  proceed  now  to  consider  the 
early  accounts  of  Williams'  baptism, 
and  the  numerous  and  convincino; 
proofs    that    it    was    an    immersion. 

Dr.  Whitsitt  quotes  from  Governor 
Winthrop,  and  also  from  Rev.  Hugli 
Peters  of  Salem,  their  accounts  of  the 
baptism,  in  both  of  which  it  is  spoken 
of  as  a  '^  rebaptism."  He  confesses  that 
this  word  does  "  not  positively  settle  the 
question  regarding  the  act  employed"; 
but  he  thinks  that  in  the  mouths  of 
these  men  "  that  word  could  hardly 
point  to  anything  else  than  to  the  act 
of  sprinkling  or  pouring."  If  Dr. 
AVhitsitt  had  pursued  his  investiga- 
tions a  little  further,  he  would  have 
]:>een    saved    from    making    such   an  in- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER  WILLIAMS  67 

ference.  Mr.  Xatliaiiiel  Morton  of  Plv- 
moutli,  ill  liis  "  Xew  England  Memo- 
riaV  published  in  1()()9,  also  gives  an 
account  of  AMI  Hams'  Ijaptisni,  in  Avliich 
lie  speaks  of  it  as  ''  another  baptism," 
and  also  as  "  a  new  baptism/'  If  Dr. 
AVhitsitt's  position  is  correct  with  ref- 
erence to  the  English  publications,  viz., 
that  "new  baptism''  invariably  refers  to 
immersion,  here  is  convincing  proof  of 
his  own  kind  that  Roger  A\'illiams'  bap- 
tism \vas  immersion. 

It  is  enouoh  for  us  to  remember  that 
at  that  time,  as  we  have  shown,  the 
opposition  was  against  the  KE-baptism, 
rather  than  ao-iinst  immersion,  for  that 
involved  the  repudiation  of  infant  bap- 
tism. This  was  the  point  about  Avhicli 
the  controversy  raged,  as  Ave  have  said. 
Immersion  was  not  so  strano-e  a  tliino-. 
Its  hiAvfulness  was  recognized,  at  least 


68  THE  BAPTISM   OF  EOGER  AYILLIAMS 

in  some  quarters,  and  the  immersion  of 
children  ^vas  tolerated  and  practiced, 
and  adult  immersion  accepted  by  some. 
The  churches  were  up  in  arms  in  de- 
fence of  infant  baptism.  The  RE-bap- 
tism  Avas  the  hete  noir.  The  Baptists 
were  sometimes  called,  and  sometimes 
called  themselves  anti-Pedobaptists.  In 
the  ease  of  Mr.  Chauncy  the  word  ''im- 
mersion" needed  to  be  used,  otherwise 
the  point  of  difference  between  him 
and  the  church  at  Plymouth  could  not 
be  expressed. 

But  conclusive  proof  of  the  irrele- 
vancy of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  ai'gument  from 
the  use  of  the  word  "  rebaptism "  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  Avhen  the  bap- 
tism of  the  little  group  of  persons  at 
Seekonk  by  Dr.  John  Clarke  and  Mark 
Lucar  in  1(3 J:9  is  described^ — a  baptism 
which  Ave  knoAv  uoav,  and  which  every- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS  ()9 

body  knew  then,  was  an  immersion — 
it  is  called  simply  a  "  rebaptism."  The 
follo\\'inc^  extract  is  taken  from  the  com- 
plaint  and  remonstrance  which  the  Gen- 
eral Court  of  Massachusetts  sent  to  the 
General  Court  of  Plymouth,  l^ecause  the 
latter  had  l)een  treating  the  religious  of- 
fenders within  its  borders  too  leniently  : 
'^  AVee  have  heard  heeretofore  of  diverse 
Annabaptists,  arisen  up  in  your  jurisdic- 
con,  and  connived  at ;  but  being  but 
few,  wee  well  hoped  that  it  might  have 
pleased  God,  by  the  endeavors  of  your- 
selves and  the  faithfull  elders  w^'^  you, 
to  have  reduced  such  erring  men  againe 
into  the  right  way.  But  now,  to  our 
great  griefe,  wee  are  credibly  informed 
that  your  patient  bearing  ^v^^'  such  men 
hath  pVluced  another  eifect,  namely,  the 
nuiltiplying  and  encreasing  of  the  same 
errors,   and  wee  feare   maybe  of  other 


70  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   ^YILLIAMS 

errors  also,  if  timely  care  be  not  taken 
to  siippresse  the  same.  Perticulerly  wee 
understand  that  within  this  few  Aveekes 
there  have  Ijinn  at  Sea  Chincke  thirteene 
or  foAverteene  p'sons  rebaptized  (a  sa\  if te 
progresse  in  one  tonne;)  }'ett  wee  heare 
not  of  any  effect  nail  restriecon  is  inten- 
ded thereabonts.*"  (Mass.  Col.  Records, 
Vol.  Ill,  p.  173). 

The  Avord  "  rebaptism,"  therefore,  had 
nothino^  in  it  bv  which  to  determine  the 
manner  in  which  the  act  ^vas  performed. 
It  meant  simply  that  persons  who  had 
previously  been  baptized,  submitted  at 
that  time  to  a  rite  called  baptism,  not 
necessarily  to  the  same  rite  ^vhich  they 
had  received  before,  but  to  some  rite 
which  bore  that  name.  Baptism  had 
already  acquired  a  use  similar  to  its  use 
to-day.  In  enactments  passed  l)y  the 
colonial    legislatures    the   immersion   of 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS  71 

Ba[)tists  was  spoken  of  as  "  baptisin," 
and  their  ministers  were  accnsed  of  hav- 
ing "presnnied  to  take  upon  them  to 
administer  the  saci'ament  of  l)aptisni/' 
and  tliat  ^\'as  at  a  date  when  there  was 
no  possible  uncertainty  as  to  what  they 
did.  A\dien  Dj'.  Whitsitt  cites  Winthrop 
and  Peters  as  furnishino^  evidence  in 
favor  of  the  non-immersion  of  Roger 
Williams,  his  witnesses  are  utterly  worth- 
less ;  and  ^^hen  he  calls  them  contempo- 
rary witnesses,  and  places  them  over  and 
above  William  Coddington  who,  although 
a  contemporary,  uttered  his  testimony  a 
iew  years  later,  he  is  simply  arraying 
nothing  against  something,  and  that 
something  is  sufficient  in  itself  alone  to 
demolish  Dr.  Whitsitt's  theory,  to  dis- 
prove his  inference  and  nullify  all  his 
reasoning. 

There    are    three    lines    of    evidence, 


72  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   AVILLIAMS 

eitlier  one  of  which  seems  sufficient  to 
establish  the  fact  of  the  immersion  of 
Koger  Williams,  in  the  absence  of  posi- 
tive testimony  to  the  contrary,  and  all 
taken  t(^2:ethei'  make  that  immersion  as 
certain  and  trustworthy  as  any-  fact  of 
colonial  history. 

There  is,  first,  the  evidence  from  Wil- 
liams' expressed  convictions  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  rite  enjoined  l)y  Christ  and 
practiced  by  his  apostles.  His  views 
found  clear  expression  in  liis  writings, 
published  soon  after  his  baptism,  and 
were  adhered  to  as  long  as  he  lived,  that 
is,  so  far  as  their  scriptural  ness  was  con- 
cerned. Plis  only  doubt,  as  is  well  known, 
was  whether  the  power  to  administer 
Christian  rites  had  not  been  lost  by 
reason  of  the  corruption  of  the  church 
and  its  ministry,  and  whether  there  was 
not  needed  for  its  restoration  a  ne^v  apos- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   ^YILLIAMS  73 

tolate.  But  Ills  views,  both  as  to  the 
rite  of  baptism  and  its  proper  candidates, 
w  ere  unmistakably  in  harmony  witli  the 
Baptist  position,  and  no  fair  interpreta- 
tion can  weaken  the  force  of  their  testi- 
mony in  favor  of  his  immersion. 

In  liis  tract  entitled  ''Christenings 
make  not  Chi'istians,''  published  in  Lon- 
don in  10-1:5,  he  says:  "For  our  New 
England  parts,  I  can  speak  uprightly 
and  confidently.  I  kno\v  it  to  have  been 
easy  for  myself,  l(>ng  ere  this,  to  liave 
])rouo:ht  manv  thousands  of  these  natives, 
yea,  tlie  w  hole  country,  to  a  far  greater 
antichristian  conversion  than  ever  was 
yet  heard  of  in  America.  I  have  re- 
ported scanething  in  the  chapter  of  their 
religion  |  in  his  Key  |  how  readily  I  could 
have  broug:ht  tlie  \\  hole  country  to  have 
observed  one  day  in  seven;  I  add,  to 
have  received  a  baptism  (or  washing), 


74  THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGEll   AYILLIAMS 

though  it  were  in  rivers  (as  the  first 
Christians  and  the  Lord  Jesus  himself 
did),  to  have  come  to  a  stated  eliurch 
meeting,  maintained  priests  and  forms  of 
prayer,  and  the  whole  form  of  antichris- 
tian  worship  in  life  and  death." 

He  was  discussing  the  conversion  of 
the  Indians,  and  condemning  the  method 
which  he  declared  had  been  practiced  by 
false  Christians  among  the  heathen,  the 
method  of  outward  submission  to  rites 
and  ceremonies,  whereby  they  had  made 
'•  monstrous  and  most  inhuman  conver- 
sions, yea,  ten  thousands  of  the  poor 
natives,  sometimes  by  wiles  and  subtile 
devices,  sometimes  l)y  force,  compelling 
them  to  submit  to  that  which  they  under- 
stood not,  neither  before  nor  after  such 
their  monstrous  christening  of  them." 
He  could  easily  have  carried  out  this 
Roman     Catholic     method     successfully 


THE   BAPTISM   OF  liOGEll  WILLIAMS  75 

with  the  American  Indians,  he  said,  had 
he  cliosen  to  (h)  so,  and  persuaded  them 
to  accept  not  simply  a  christening,  l)ut 
even  a  New  Testament  baptism,  and  all 
the  outward  forms  of  obedience  and 
worship,  ^vhich  ^vould  have  Ijeeu  still  an 
"  antichristian  worship." 

Here  is  a  distinct  acknow  ledgment  of 
his  belief  in  immersion  as  tlie  primitive 
baptism,  with  no  intimation  tliat  it  was 
to  him  a  matter  of  doubt  or  uncertainty, 
or  even  a  fresh  discovery,  or  that  it  had 
not  been  the  mode  of  his  own  baptism 
six  or  seven  years  before.  Indeed  it 
seems  altogether  certain  tliat  he  was  ex- 
pressing the  l)elief  which  he  had  reached 
and  carried  into  practice  Avhen  his  sepa- 
ratism culminated,  and  lie  l)roke  away 
completely  from  his  old  ecclesiastical 
atliliations,  and  openly  yielded  obedience 
to    the    authoritative    example    of   "the 


76     THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS 

first  Christians  and  the  Lord  Jesus  him- 
self." The  phrase  ''  Baptism  (or  wash- 
ing) though  it  were  in  rivers/'  has  no 
reference  to  the  "  nnusualness  of  im- 
mersion "  as  Dr.  Whitsitt  insists,  but  it 
rather  draws  a  contrast  bet\veen  tlie 
New  Testament  rite  and  the  practice  of 
the  church  of  Home.  He  dechired  that 
he  could  have  persuaded  tlie  Indians  to 
accept  even  immersion,  a  rite  of  fuller 
and  richer  spiritual  meaning  than  a 
christening,  but  it  would  only  have  been 
"  a  far  greater  antichristian  conversion," 
had  tliere  been  wanting  the  inward  ex- 
ercises of  faith  and  repentance. 

Proceeding  to  speak  of  the  true  method 
of  Christianizing  the  Indians,  Williams 
declared  '^  First,  it  must  be  by  the  free 
j^rocl aiming  and  preaching  of  repentance 
and  forgiveness  of  sins  (Luke  XXIV)  by 
such  messengers  as  can  prove  their  law- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ItOGEK   WILLIAMS  77 

f«il  sending  and  commission  from  the 
Lord  Jesus  to  make  disciples  out  of  all 
nations,  and  so  to  l)aptize  or  wash  tliem, 
Et:;  TO  o><>fj.a,  into  the  name  or  profession  of 
tlie  Holy  Trinity.  Matt.  XXVIII,  19  ; 
Kom.  X,  14,  15.  Secondly,  such  a  con- 
version, so  far  as  man's  judgment  can 
reach,  which  is  fallible,  as  was  the  judg- 
ment of  the  first  messengers,  as  in  Simon 
Magus,  ttc,  as  in  the  turning  of  the 
wdiole  man  from  the  power  of  Satan 
unto  (rod.  Acts  XXVI.  Such  a  chan<j^e 
as  if  an  ohl  man  l)ecame  a  new  babe 
(John  IV.)  ;  yea,  as  amounts  to  God's 
new  creation  in  the  soul.  Eph.  II,  10." 
In  this  extract  it  is  said — "baptize  or 
wash  them,  J^'-^  -'>  (>>"//a".  Tlie  candid 
reader  will  say  at  once  that  these  words 
must  he  interpreted  in  harmony  with  the 
definition  of  l)a])tisni  given  by  the 
writer  in  the  previous  part  of  the  tract. 


78  THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGEIl   WILLIAMS 

Not  SO,  says  Dr.  Wliitsitt.  Because 
AVilliams  does  not  say  "  in  rivers/'  and 
again  define  the  meaning  of  baptism  as 
he  did  before,  therefore  ''  he  ignores  im- 
mersion entirely.  It  is  sufficient  to 
'  wash  them  into  the  name  or  profession 
of  tlie  Holy  Trinity/  and  is  not  necessary 
to  '  wash  them  in  rivers ',  as  ^^as  indicated 
above.  I'his  second  citation  appears  to 
prove  that  Mr.  Williams  did  not  regard 
immersion  as  essential  to  Christian  bap- 
tism." 

It  is  difficult  to  l^elieve  that  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt  is  serious  in  offering  this  explanation 
of  Roger  Williams'  language.  It  is  the 
refinement  of  ingenuity  in  an  attempt 
to  interpret  away  Roger  Williams  from 
liis  own  definition  of  baptism,  and  make 
him  change  his  mind,  and  contradict  him- 
self within  the  limits  of  a  l)rief  tract. 
Because  h'e   did   not  use  '' in  I'ivers "  in 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGEK   WILLIAMS  79 

the  second  instance,  it  is  claimed  that  lie 
not  only  "  ignored  immersion  entirely/' 
but  he  actnall y  ''  decided  against  it."  Dr. 
AYhitsitt  croes  so  far  as  to  sav  that  the 
omission  was  made  "  apparently  of  set 
purpose." 

Such  reasonino;  emiiloyed  to-day  would 
make  Pedobaptists  of  all  of  ns.  It  is 
donbtful  if  Dr.  Whitsitt  himself  could 
stand  the  test  of  his  own  astounding 
logic.  A  man  may  define  baptism  neyer 
so  clearly  at  the  beginning  of  a  discourse, 
Init  if  he  does  not  say  in  each  allusion 
to  it  afterward,  ])aptism  is  an  act  ^^'hich 
is  performed  "  in  rivers,''  he  has  changed 
his  mind,  he  has  "ignored  immersion 
entirely",  he  made  the  omission  "  of  set 
purpose,"  and  must  be  regarded  as  haying 
"  decided  ac^ainst  it "  !  I ! 

Moreover,  lest  any  one  should  think 
that  the  words    "wash    them    into    the 


80     THE  BAPTISM  OF  EOGEE  WILLIAMS 

name  or  profession  of  the  Hol}^  Trinity," 
as  used  l_)y  Williams,  suggest  the  idea  of 
an  immersion,  Dr.  Whitsitt  cites  the 
language  of  the  Larger  and  Shorter 
Catechisms,  in  answer  to  the  (juestion 
''  What  is  baptism  ?  "  viz. :  "  The  wash- 
ing ^vitli  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  This  language,  says  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt,  "  indisputably  points  to  sprink- 
ling or  pouring."  It  is  "parallel  to  the 
language  of  Eoger  Williams,"  (hardly 
so,  l)ut  let  that  pass)  and  as  this  "pro- 
vides for  sprinlvling  oi'  pouring,"  so 
must  his  language  "just  as  certainly" 
provide  for  sprinkling  or  pouring.  In 
other  words,  because  the  Westminster 
divines  used  language  with  unwarranted 
liberty  so  that  "  washing "  meant  to 
the^in  only  sprinkling  or  pouring,  there- 
fore  Eoger  Williams  must  have   taken 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  EOGER  WILLIAMS     81 

the  same  liberty,  and  intended  the  same 
tliini'- ! 

Again,  lest  any  one  should  be  misled 
and  suppose  that  Roger  Williams  in 
(juoting  the  Greek  phrase  £";?  -o  o-M,>,.a 
knew  anything  of  its  correct  Jiieaning 
and  sug:oi;estiv^eness  in  connection  with 
luj-z'/Uo,  Dr.  Whitsitt  has  discovered,  by 
the  timely  aid  of  Dr.  Dexter,  a  BroAvn- 
ist  writer  who  defined  baptism  as  a 
''  washins:  with  water  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  <fec.,"  and  even  ''  the  sprink- 
ling witli  water  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  ifec."  From  this  instance  Dr. 
Whitsitt  draws  this  remarkable  infer- 
ence, viz.  :  "  The  circumstance  that  the 
preposition  'into'  is  employed  in  the 
same  way  after  the  ^vord  '  sprinkling ' 
as  after  the  Avord  *  washino; '  renders  it 
clear  that  in  neither  case  is  immersion 
the  necessary  or  natural  meaning."     In 


82  THE   BAPTISM   OF   EOGER   WILLIAMS 

other  words,  —  because  an  unknown 
BroAvnist  blundered  in  his  knowledge 
of  Greek  and  in  liis  use  of  English, 
therefore  the  scholarly  Ro<>:er  Williams 
must  have  done  the  same  ;  and,  more- 
over, he  nuist  have  escaped  ''  the  nec- 
essary and  natural  meaning "  of  the 
baptismal  formula ;  and,  still  more,  we 
are  prohi])ited  from  ascribing  to  his 
language    its    ''  necessary    and    natui'al 


meanms: 


We  feel  like  apologizing  for  dw.ell- 
ing  so  long  upon  Dr.  Whitsitt's  method 
of  explaining  away  the  plain  confes- 
sion of  faith,  which  Roger  Williams 
has  left,  as  to  the  lite  of  baptism. 
It  reminds  one  of  nothing  so  much  as 
the  attempts  which  are  sometimes  made 
to  nullify  the  obvious  teachings  of  the 
New  Testament  in  reference  to  this  in- 
itial Christian  rite.     It  may  be  ingenious. 


THE    BAPTISM   OF   ROCIEK   WILLIAMS  83 


])ut  it  does  not  seem  to  be  ingenuous. 
The  language  of  Roger  Williams  should 
be  allowed  to  Jiave  its  natural  and  nec- 
essary meaning.  lie  should  l)e  interpre- 
ted by  himself — not  by  the  AYestminster 
divines  in  their  a^\k^vard  attempt  to  jus- 
tify an  unscriptural  practice  —  not  by  an 
ii2:norant  Brownist,  whose  io:norance  of 
the  Greek  language  seems  to  be  equaled 
by  his  inability  to  use  the  English  lan- 
guage correctly — and  not  by  Dr.Whitsitt. 
A  second  statement  made  by  Eo£!;er 
Williams,  four  years  later,  of  his  view  of 
baptism,  is  equally  clear  and  explicit, 
and  has  received  similar  treatment  at  the 
hands  of  Dr.  Whitsitt.  In  a  letter  to 
Gov.  Winthrop  under  the  date  of  Xov. 
10,  1649,  he  gave  an  account  of  the  ])ap- 
tism  which  had  recently  taken  place  at 
Seekonk,  to  which  allusion  has  already 
been  made. 


84  THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

"  At  Seekonk  a  great  many  have  lately 
concurred  with  Mr.  Clarke  and  our  Prov- 
idence men  about  the  point  of  a  new 
baptism  and  the  manner  of  dipping, 
and  Mr.  Clarke  hath  been  there  lately, 
and  Mr.  Lucar,  and  hath  dipped  them. 
I  believe  their  practice  comes  nearer  the 
first  practice  of  our  great  founder,  Jesus 
Christ,  than  other  practices  of  religion 
do,  and  yet  I  have  not  satisfaction  neither 
in  the  authority  by  which  it  is  done,  nor 
in  the  manner." 

Nothing  could  be  plainer  than  this 
statement  in  its  testimony  to  tlie  belief 
of  Roger  Williams  in  immersion  as  the 
baptism  instituted  by  Christ,  and  at  this 
time  practiced  by  the  Providence  and 
Newport  churches.  There  is  no  intima- 
tion that  the  Providence  and  Ne^vport 
churches  had  differed  in  their  practice 
from  the  beginning,  or  that  they  had  not 


THE   liAl'TISM   OF   liOGEli   WILLIAMS  85 

l)een  immersing  for  several  years,  more 
or  less.  Dr.  Wliitsitt  strangely  perverts 
the  obvious  meaning  of  the  entire  pas- 
sage to  make  it  lit  in  to  his  theory.  The 
plirase  "  a  ne^v  Ijaptism  "  does  not  refer 
to  the  practice  of  the  Providence  and 
Newport  men  particularly  (although 
since  immersion  had  Ijeen  revived  in 
this  country  for  only  about  ten  years,  it 
miglit  ^vitli  propriety  have  been  called 
"a  new  baptism  ■'),  but  it  refers  to  the 
candidates  at  Seekonk,  who  desired  a 
new  and  different  baptism  from  that 
which  thev  had  received  in  cliildhood. 
It  was  a  new  baptism  to  them  in  the 
sense  of  being  both  a  second  Ijaptism 
and  administered  in  a  different  manner. 
When  Dr.  Whitsitt  says  that  ^'Before 
1649  both  Mr.  Jolm  Clarke  and  the  Prov- 
idence men  had  ^concurred  about  the 
point  of  a  new  ])aptism,' "  implying  that 


86  THE   BAPTISM   OF   EOGER   >YILLIAMS 

there  had  been  a  time  when  tlie  t\vo 
Baptist  churehes  had  not  concurred,  lie 
says  AN'hat  lioger  AVillianis'  language 
does  not  say  or  hint.  It  \vas  the  8ee- 
konk  people  who  had  lately  concurred 
with  Mr.  John  Clarke  and  our  Provi- 
dence men,  that  is,  who  had  come  to  the 
position  occupied  by  these  two  churches. 
Such  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  Dr.  AVhit- 
sitt  is  unaccountable.  The  little  com. 
pany  of  Separatists  at  Seekonk  had  been 
led  to  accept  the  views  held  and  prac- 
ticed in  both  Providence  and  Ne^v^port, 
and  sought  opportunity  to  be  immersed 
in  like  manner  on  profession  of  their 
faith  in  Christ. 

It  was  perfectly  natural  that  Roger 
Williams  should  speak  of  it  as  "  their 
practice,''  for  having  withdra\vn  from 
the  fellowship  of  the  Providence  church, 
though  in  no  particular  from  its  faith, 


THE   BAPTISM   OF  liOGEll   WILLIAMS  87 

he  C(Hil(l  not  justly  claim  that  its  bap- 
tism ^vas  still  liis ;  indeed,  he  proceeds 
to  sho\\  \\  hy  he  had  withdrawn,  and 
n<)\v  disclaimed  that  to  ^vhich  a  few 
}'ears  before  he  had  openly  submitted. 
"  I  have  not  satisfaction,"  he  says,  that 
is,  his  mind  could  not  remain  satisfied, 
"neither  in  the  authority  by  which  it 
is  done,  nor  in  the  manner."  The  au- 
thority to  administer  the  rite  had  been 
lost  through  the  desreneracv  of  the 
church,  he  Ijelieved,  and  he  could  not 
now  approve  tlie  manner  in  ^vhich  the 
practice  of  immersion  had  been  revived 
in  this  land.  That  "  manner  ''  does  not 
refer  at  all  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  as 
Dr.  AMiitsitt  asserts,  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  AYilliams  had  declared  with 
the  previous  l)reath  that  he  did  approve 
of  that.  It  is  hardly  reasonable  to  make 
him  iiatly  contradict  himself  ^vithin  the 


88  THE   BAPTISM   OF   liOGEE   WILLIAMS 

compass  of  four  short  lines.  It  was  tlie 
validity  of  baptism  as  now  administered, 
and  the  manner  in  which  it  had  been  re- 
established, that  he  found  himself  now 
unable  to  endorse.  This  interpretation 
is  the  perfectly  natural  and  obvious  one. 
It  makes  his  language  consistent  with 
itself,  and  entirely  consistent  with  his 
known  position.  Any  other  interpreta- 
tion is  a  painful  wrench  of  the  language 
to  make  it  appear  to  say  what  it  ^vas 
never  intended  to  say.  This  linguistic 
distortion  and  this  astonishing  misinter- 
pretation reach  their  climax  ^vdien  Dr. 
AVhitsitt  ventures  to  suggest  the  hypo- 
thesis :  ''  It  is  possible  that  he  [that  is, 
Williams]  could  not  find  satisfaction  in 
the  manner,  for  the  reason  that  while  he 
admitted  that  immersion  was  scriptural 
and  apostolical  he  could  not  convince 
himself  that  it  was  essential  to  baptism." 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   liOUEli   WLLLIAMS  89 

There  is  not  the  slightest  oppovtunity 
here  to  make  a  place  for  Mark  Liicar  as 
"the  first  genuine  Baptist  on  the  continent 
of  America,"and  when  Dr.  AVhitsitt  en- 
endeavors  to  do  so,  and  so  twists  tlie  lan- 
guage of  Williams  as  to  make  it  appear 
that  he  "  yields  that  honor "  to  Lucar, 
he  maA^  l^e  exhihitino;  an  amazin£r  skill 
and  coui'age  as  an  interpreter,  but  he  is 
putting  a  tremendous  tax  upon  human 
credulity. 

It  is  true  tliat  when  Williams  with- 
drew from  the  Providence  church,  with 
two  or  three  others,  for  the  reason  given, 
there  remained  in  the  church  a  solici- 
tude al)out  the  validity  of  its  baptism. 
It  shared  to  some  extent  the  view  of  its 
pastor,  and  it  contemplated  sending  a 
representative  to  the  Anabaptists  of  the 
Ohl  World  to  receive  wliat  it  mioht  re- 
gard  as  apostolic  baptism,  that  is,  bap- 


90  THE  BAPTISM   OF   HOGEH  WILLIAMS 

tism  by  an  unbroken  line  of  descent. 
This  solicitude,  however,  soon  disap- 
peared. But  when  Dr.  Whitsitt  im- 
plies that  the  solicitude  was  in  refer- 
ence to  the  mode  of  baptism  and  not 
its  v^alidity,  and  that  it  prompted  them 
to  seek  immersion  from  Europe,  and 
then  adds,  "  but  they  finally  concurred 
with  Mr.  John  Clarke,  and  they  were 
all  immersed,  as  is  supposed,  by  Lucar," 
he  misinterprets  the  true  condition  of 
things  in  Providence,  he  again  misap- 
plies the  language  of  Williams  about 
'^  concurring,"  and  offers  to  the  public 
a  piece  of  conjectural  history  as  un- 
substantial as  any  that  was  ever  spun 
by  a  fertile  imagination  e,c  niliilo. 

To  sum  up  what  has  been  said  on  this 
point,  we  have  the  plain  and  unecpiivo- 
cal  confession  of  Roo-er  Williams  of  liis 
l)elief  in  the  scriptural ness  of  immersion 


THE   BAPTISJ\r  OF  llOGER  WILLIAMS  91 

as  baptism,  given  first  in  1045  and  re- 
peated in  1649,  witli  no  intimation  tliat 
there  liad  Ijeen  anv  c*liani''e  of  view, 
eitlier  in  himself  or  in  liis  companions 
(so  far  as  the  mode  of  ba[)tism  is  con- 
cerned) since  the  time,  six  or  seven  years 
before,  when  he  <^penly  confessed  his 
faith  in  Christ  and  complete  snbmission 
to  his  commands,  and  inaugurated  what 
has  l)eeii  called  from  the  first  the  Baptist 
movement  in  America.  For  lioo-er  Wil- 
liams,  with  his  well-known  conscientious- 
ness and  unswervinii'  lovaltv  to  his  con- 
victions,  to  reach  sucli  a  belief,  was  for 
him  to  act  upon  it,  and  to  adhere  to  it 
only  as  a  ne\v  and  equally  conscientious 
belief  came  in  shortly  to  disturb  his  out- 
ward relations.  From  his  sympathy 
with  the  Providence  church  and  its 
characteristic  views  and  practices  he 
never  departed.     In    1()72,  in  his  reply 


92  •         THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGEll   WILLIAMS 

to  George  Fox,  he  wrote  :  ''  After  all  my 
searcli  and  examinations  and  considera- 
tions, I  do  profess  to  believe  that  some 
come  nearer  to  the  first  primitive  churches 
and  the  institutions  and  appointment  of 
Jesus  Christ  than  others;  as  in  many  re- 
spects, so  in  that  gallant  and  lieavenly 
and  fundamental  principle  of  the  true 
matter  of  a  Christian  congregation,  flock, 
or  society  ;  namely,  actual  believers,  true 
disciples  and  converts,  living  stones,  such 
as  can  give  some  account  how  the  grace 
of  God  hath  appeared  unto  them."" 

A  second  line  of  evidence  in  favor 
of  the  immersion  of  Roger  Williams  is 
found  in  the  testimony  of  his  contem- 
poraries which  has  been  preserved.  As 
we  have  seen,  the  testimony  of  Winthrop 
and  Peters,  cited  by  Dr.  Whitsitt  in 
favor  of  his  theory,  is  irrelevant  and 
worthless.     There  is,  however,  positive 


THE   BAPTISM    OF   llOGEK   WILLIAMS  93 

contemporary  testimony,  Avhicli  estab- 
lishes the  nature  of  AVilliams'  baptism 
beyond  a  (piestion.  In  a  letter  (^f 
Thomas  Hooker  of  Connecticut,  to 
Thomas  Shepard  of  Cambridge,  bearing 
date  of  Xovember  2,  1640,  there  is  evi- 
dence tliat  immersion  was  undoid)te<lly 
practiced  at  Providence  at  that  time. 
Dr.  Wliitsitt  has  undertaken  to  show 
til  at  the  first  baptism  in  Providence  was 
prohahlij  not  an  immersion,  and  that  im- 
mersion ^)/'6>/^r^/>///  ^^•as  not  introduced  in 
Providence  until  the  arrival  of  Mark 
Lucar  from  England,  which  event  pos- 
sihJy  took  place  in  1644.  Of  that  event 
liowever  we  know  absolutely  nothing. 
In  164U,  Ilookei-,  writing  to  Shepard, 
alludes  to  an  invitation  which  had  l>een 
extended  to  Tie\ .  Charles  Chauncy  of 
Plymouth,  with  whose  immersionist 
views  we  are  already  accpuiinted,  to  re- 


94  THE    BAPTISM   OF  llOdEll   WILLIAMS 

move  on  that  account  to  Providence,  and 
says  "That  coast  is  more  meet  for  his 
opinion  and  practice."  The  character  of 
tlie  church  in  Providence  as  an  immer- 
sionist  chnrcii  seems  to  have  been  well 
known  in  1640,  and  it  was  suj^posed  that 
Chauncy  would  find  a  welcome  there 
for  "his  opinion  and  practice,"  or  at 
least  that  it  ^vas  a  more  fitting  place  for 
him  to  proclaim  his  vie^vs  and  find  sym- 
pathizers with  them.  This  letter  of 
Hooker's  was  probably  written  at  the 
time  when  the  discussions  in  the  Ply- 
mouth church  wei'e  sul)mitted  for  con- 
sideration and  counsel  to  all  the  churches 
in  the  colonies.  Gov.  Winthrop  says 
that  at  that  time  those  "  who  were  of  the 
I'igid  se2)aration  and  favored  Anabap- 
tism "  were  removing  to  Providence, 
which  offered  a  moi'e  congenial  atnios- 
pliere,  and   evidently  the  inhabitants  of 


THE   BArXISM   OF   llOGER   WILLIAMS  95 

tlie    Bay    and    of     Plyjiioiitli    ^^e^e    not 
averse  to  tlieir  iyoins^. 

Further  and  indubitable  testimony  in 
favor  of  Williams^  immersion  is  fcnind  in 
the  statement  of  ^Ir.  Richard  Scott,  who 
was  undoubtedly  a  constituent  member 
of  the  Providence  church  with  Roger 
Williams.  His  wife  was  sister  to  the 
celebrated  ^Irs.  xVnne  Hutchinson,  and 
it  was  through  her  influence,  according 
to  Gov.  Winthrop,  being  ^'infected 
with  Anabaptistry,"  that  ]Mr.  AVilliams 
was  led  "  to  make  open  profession  there- 
of." This  opinion  of  Gov.  AVinthrop, 
^vhich  Avas  probably  prompted  by  charity 
for  his  friend  Rosfer  Williams  and  dis- 
like  of  the  Hutchinson  family,  may  be 
taken  for  what  it  is  ^vorth.  Richard 
Scott,  writing  tliirty-eight  yearsafter  the 
Providence  l)aptism  and  the  origin  of 
the  church,  (at  that  time  he  had  ])ecome 


96  THE   BAPTISM   OF    liOGEIl   WILLIAMS 

a  Quaker),  says  of  Mr.  Williams — "  I 
walked  with  him  in  the  Baptists'  wa}" 
al^oiit  three  or  four  months,  .... 
in  ^^■hich  time  he  Ijroke  from  his  societ}^, 
and  declared  at  large  the  ground  and 
reason  for  it ;  that  tlieir  baptism  could 
not  be  right  because  it  was  not  admin- 
istered by  an  apostle.  After  that  lie  set 
upon  a  way  of  seeking,  with  t^v  o  or  three 
of  them  that  had  dissented  ^^ith  him, 
by  way  of  preaching  and  praying ;  and 
there  he  continued  a  year  or  two  till 
two  of  the  tliree  left  him.  .  .  .  After 
his  society  and  he  in  a  Church  way  were 
parted,  he  then  went  to  England," 

This  statement  is  in  exact  harmony 
with  the  kno^vn  facts  of  Koger  Wil- 
liams' life  at  that  time,  viz.  :  his  identi- 
fication AA'ith  the  Baptist  church,  which 
is  called  ''  his  society,"  implying  that  he 
liad  been  prominent  in  its  organization, 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS  97 

his  \vitlulra\val  from  it  after  a  few 
months  and  tlie  reason  for  it,  his  becom- 
infc  a  Seeker,  and  tlie  time  of  his  first 
visit  to  England.  Moreover,  this  state- 
ment  is  from  the  pen  of  one  who  was 
not  only  a  contemporaiy  of  AVilliams, 
bnt  ^vas  one  of  those  wdio  w^ere  baptized 
]jy  him,  and  associated  with  him  in 
church  felh>wship,  ''  walking  Avitli  him 
in  the  Baptists'  ^vay/'  Yet  tliere  is  no 
intimation  that  there  liad  Ijeen  any 
change  in  tlie  practice  of  the  church 
from  the  be^'innino;,  when  he  and  Wil- 
Hams  ^valked  too-ether  in  it,  until  the 
time  of  his  Avritino;  no  intimation  that 
"  the  Bai)tists'  ^vav  "  inauo-urated  \)\  '\\\\- 
Hams  and  his  companions  in  1639  or 
1638,  had  been  in  any  essential  feature 
modified  or  departed  from  in  1677.  It 
is  incredible,  if  the  church  had  practiced 
sprinkling  at  the  beginning  (and  Scott's 


98  THE   BAPTISM   OF  EOGEK   WILLIAMS 

statement  goes  back  to  the  initial  move- 
ment), and  then  sul)se(]ently  changed  the 
rite  to  immersion,  tliat  he  did  not  know 
it,  and  if  so  great  a  change  had  been 
introduced  in  the  life  and  practice  of 
the  church,  it  is  incredible  that  he 
should  use  the  phrase  "  the  Baptists' 
way  "  as  applicable  to  the  beginning  as 
well  as  to  the  end  of  that  period  of  the 
history  of  the  church.  This  statement 
seems  to  fui'uish  conclusive  proof  that 
Eoger  Williams  was  immersed.  The 
evidence  thus  far  adduced  from  contem- 
porary sources,  which  is  abundantly 
sufficient  to  establish  the  nature  of  Wil- 
liams' baptism,  has  been  overlooked  or 
has  been  left  unnoticed  by  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt. 

Tliei'e  is  still  another  contemporary 
witness  whose  testimony  is  of  the 
strongest  and  'most  positive  kind.     This 


THE   BArilSM   OF   ROGER  WILLIAMS  99 

has  been  sufficient,  talveii  by  itself,  to 
carry  couv-ictioii  tc)  some  minds  which 
liave  carefully  examined  the  matter,  and 
has  settled  the  (question  beyond  a  doul)t. 
Mr.  William  Coddington  was  one  of  the 
compauy,  of  Avhich  Dr.  eJohn  Clarke  ^vas 
another,  which  emisfrated  from  Boston 
on  account  of  the  Antinomian  disturb- 
ances, and  settled  on  the  island  of 
Acjuidneck,  no^v  Khode  Island.  The 
civil  compact  was  signed  by  eighteen 
persons,  March  7,  1038.  Mr.  Codding- 
ton's  name  stood  Urst  on  the  list,  and 
Mr.  Clarke's,  second.  Mr.  Coddington 
^vas  a  man  of  importance.  He  had  been 
a  wealthy  merchant  in  Boston,  owning 
the  only  brick  house  there,  and  a  deputy 
to  the  Court.  He  was  a  man  of  ac- 
knowledo^ed  intellio'ence  and  ability,  and 
withal,  an  ambitious  man.  For  a  long- 
time he  opposed  the  union  of  Newport, 


100        THE   BAPTISM   OF  KOGER  WILLIAMS 

Providence  and  Warwick,  very  likely 
for  selfish  ends.  In  the  late  summer  or 
autumn  of  1651,  he  returned  from  a 
protracted  visit  to  England,  where  he 
had  been  successful  in  securing  a  char- 
ter for  the  sepai'ate  existence  of  Rhode 
Island,  as  it  was  called,  by  which  he 
was  appointed  Governor  for  life.  It 
was  for  the  I'e vocation  of  this  charter 
that  Roger  Williams  went  to  England 
on  his  second  visit,  in  connection  with 
Dr.  John  Clarke,  both  of  them  being 
deputed  to  this  service  by  their  respec- 
tive communities.  It  seemed  necessary 
to  give  this  brief  description  of  Mr. 
Coddiugton,  in  order  to  show  his  prom- 
inent character  and  position  among  the 
early  settlers  in  the  colony,  and  the 
opportunity  he  had  for  being  acquainted 
with  its  leading  men  and  the  events  of 
their  lives.     He  had  known  Roger  Wil- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS         101 

liams  from  the  first,  and  bad  sometimes 
l)eeii  associated  with  him  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  colony.     He  must  have  been 
perfectly  familiar  with  the  religious  be- 
liefs and  practice  of  his  great  contem- 
porary, and  \vith  the  principal  events  of 
his  experience.     The  settlements  of  this 
colony,  excluded  froin  the  confederation 
.of  the    other   colonies,   w^ere  bound  to- 
gether by  common  interests,  and  lixed 
in  constant    communication    and    touch 
with  each  other.     Nothing  of  importance 
at  Providence  could  have    escaped  the 
knowledge  of  Coddington  at  Newport, 
especially  if  it  related  to  that  most  con- 
spicuous subject  of  the  time,  the  chang- 
ino;  relictions  faith  of  the  people. 
■      William    Coddington,    like    Richard 
Scott,  became  a  Quaker.     He  may  have 
never  (piite   forgiven  Williams    for   se- 
curinir   the   revocation    of    his   charter, 

8 


102         THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGER   WILLIAMS 

which  he  had  been  at  such  pains  to 
get,  and  which  gave  him  a  life-term  in 
the  governorship.  However  that  may 
have  been,  Roofer  AVilliams'  vehement 
opposition  to  George  Fox,  and  his  opin- 
ions and  foHowers,  called  forth  from 
Coddington  sharp  language  against  him. 
Writing  in  1677,  he  said  :  "  I  have 
known  him  about  fifty  years :  a  mere 
weather- cock,  constant  only  in  incon- 
stancy  One  time  for  water  bap- 
tism, men  and  women  must  be  plunged 
into  the  water,  and  then  thre^v  it  all 
down  again."  It  would  seem  as  if 
there  could  be  no  possibility  of  misun- 
derstanding this  language  or  of  w^eak- 
ening  its  obvious  meaning.  It  must 
refer  to  AVilliams'  brief  connection  with 
the  Baptist  church  and  his  withdrawal 
from  it  because  he  came  to  think  that 
the  true  baptism  had  been  lost  by  rea- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   lUJGEli   WILLIAMS         108 

son  of  the  break  in  the  line  of  sacces- 
sion.  The  language  can  have  no  appli- 
cation to  any  other  period -or  act  in  his 
life.  It  must  refer  to  his  actual  immer- 
sion, to  his  act  of  obedience  to  Christ's 
command,  and  his  subserpient  question- 
ing of  the  validity  of  the  rite,  because 
the  authority  to  administer  it  had  been 
lost,  and  not  to  his  simple  belief  in  the 
scripturalness  of  immersion,  for  that,  as 
we  have  seen,  he  never  "threw  down." 
The  folhnving  paragraph  is  quoted 
from  "The  Mother  Church,"  in  which 
we  briefly  discussed  this  'question  be- 
fore the  appearance  of  Dr.  ^yhitsitt's 
book.  It  shows  the  weisfht  of  Cod- 
dington's  testimony  upon  minds  which 
at  first,  after  the  publication  of  the 
alleo-ed  late  introduction  of  immersion 
among  the  English  Baptists,  were  dis- 
posed to  take  Dr.  Whitsitt's  view. 


104         THE   BAPTIHM   OF  EOGER   WILLIAMS 

Professor  Albert  H.  Newman  in  a  re. 
view  of  Dr.  Heniy  M.  Dexter^s  ''John 
Smyth,  the  8e- Baptist,"  published  in 
The  Examiner  in  March,  1882,  was  in- 
clined to  accept  the  inference  that  AVil- 
liams'  baptism  was  sprinkling.  This  he 
did,  as  he  subsequently  confessed  {Tlie 
Examiner^  May,  1896),  ''somewhat  rash- 
ly," and  "without  having  specially  in- 
vestigated the  (piestion."  A  thorough 
study  of  the  evidence,  pro  and  con  the 
immersion  theory,  compelled  him  to  re- 
tract his  hastily  accepted  view,  and  to 
acknowleds^e  the  convincini>:  force  of 
Coddin2:toii's  testimonv.  He  also  said  : 
"  I  attach  little  importance  to  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists  had  not  as  yet  reached  the 
conviction  that  immersion  alone  is  true 
baptism.  Williams  ^vas  (piite  as  likely 
as  any  member  of  the  South wark  (Lon- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGEll   WILLIAMS         105 

don)  congregation  to  come  to  an  inde- 
])endent  conclusion  on  a  sul)ject  of  this 
kind,  and  was  quite  as  likely  to  act 
promptly  on  Lis  conviction.  Restrain- 
ing influences,  wliicli  may  liave  delayed 
action  for  a  numljer  of  years  in  London, 
were  whollv  wantino;  in  Providence. 
That  primitive  baptism  was  immersion 
had  Leen  freely  admitted  l)y  leading 
reformers,  and  immersion  was  the  form 
prescril^ed  in  tlie  English  Prayer-Book. 
A  highly  educated  man  like  Williams 
did  not  need  the  example  of  English 
Baptists  in  a  matter  of  this  kind.''  Dr. 
Newman  a(hled  that,  when  he  had 
reached  this  conclusion  after  a  thor- 
ough investigation,  he  sulmiitted  it  to 
Dr.  IT.  M.  Dextei',  and  found,  to  his 
great  surprise,  that  he,  too,  had  been 
led  to  adopt  the  same  view.  "  His  an- 
swer  was    entirely   in   accord    witli    my 


10(3         THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

own  conclusion.  He  expressed  the  opin- 
ion that,  in  the  absence  of  contemporary 
evidence  against  immersion,  Codding- 
ton's  statement  must  be  accepted  as 
probably  correct." 

Foi'  a  man  whose  pi-edispositions  were 
in  the  opposite  direction  to  ackno^^  ledge 
tliat  a  view  is  "  probably  correct "  is, 
perhaps,  all  that  sliould  ])e  expected. 
It  speaks  well  for  the  convincing  char- 
acter of  the  evidence  which  has  been 
presented  to  his  mind.  Moreover,  it  is 
an  honorable  confession  for  a  man  to 
make. 

But  what  reply  does  Dr.  Whitsitt 
make  to  Mr.  Coddington,  and  what  is 
his  method  of  disposing  of  his  testi- 
mony ?  He  seeks  to  weaken  Mr.  Cod- 
dington's  testimony  by  weakening  his 
memory.  He  says  :  "  One's  memory  is 
capalde  of  becoming  confused  in  thirty- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGEll   WILLIAMS         1U7 

eigbt  years,  and  Mr.  Coddington's  iiieiu- 
ory  may  liave  become  confused.  He 
may  liave  supposed  that  the  immersion 
of  believers  was  practiced  in  Rhode  Is- 
land in  1639  because  it  had  been  prac- 
ticed since  1644;  but  that  was  a  violent 
supposition."  Hardly  so  violent,  it  may 
l)e  replied,  as  this  supposition  by  T)r. 
AVhitsitt,  for  it  is  nothino;  but  a  oTatu- 
itous  guess  offered  to  meet  the  force  of 
an  unequivocal  statement,  which  sw^eeps 
away  his  unsubstantial  inference.  Cod- 
dington,  indeed,  Avrote  in  1677,  thirty- 
eight  years  after  the  event,  but  he  was 
still  in  possession  of  all  his  faculties. 
He  was  chosen  Governor  of  Ehode  Is- 
land in  1674,  1676,  and  1678.  The 
nature  of  the  act  to  which  he  bore 
witness,  was  such  that  there  was  little 
likelihood  that  the  memory  would  be 
confused  about  it,  especially  in  a  man 


108         THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   ^^TLLIAMS 

who  had  become  a  Quaker.  Siich  a 
supposition  only  shows  the  utter  ab- 
sence of  any  plausible  argument  with 
which  to  meet  the  positive  affirmation 
of  Mr.  Coddington.  Such  an  affirmation 
has  historical  value.  Such  a  supposition 
has  none. 

The  assertion  of  Dr.  Whitsitt  that 
Mr.  Coddington's  statement  may  have 
referred  to  Roger  Williams'  faith  rather 
than  his  conduct,  or  to  some  other  period 
of  his  life,  has  already  been  anticipated, 
and  shown  to  be  utterly  groundless. 
His  attempt  also  to  diminish  the  force 
of  Coddington's  testimony,  by  contrast- 
ing it  with  that  of  Winthrop  and  Peters 
in  point  of  time,  has  been  exploded,  for 
they  have  no  testimony  that  bears  on 
the  question  in  discussion,  and  Codding- 
ton was  contemporary  with  what  he  de- 
scril)ed. 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   liOGEK   WILLIAMS         109 

Dr.  Whitsitt  declares  that  "  Coddino:- 
ton  was  not  an  eye  witness  any  more 
than  were  Winthrop  and  Peters."  IIow 
does  he  know  that  ^  In  the  lack  of 
positive  knowledge  it  is  just  as  reason- 
able to  say  that  he  was  an  eye  witness. 
Indeed,  there  are  some  things  that 
make  it  altogether  prol)a])le,  if  pi'ol)- 
abilities  are  to  be  accepted,  that  Cod- 
dington  was  present  on  the  occasion 
when  Roger  Williams  and  his  compan- 
ions were  immersed.  Clarke  and  Cod- 
dinij^ton  and  tlie  mio-ratino:  colon\'  visited 
Providence  on  tlieir  way  south,  and 
were  persuaded  by  AMI  Hams  to  pur- 
chase of  the  Indians  the  island  of  Aquid- 
neck  for  the  new  settlement,  instead  of 
going  farther,  and  were  aided  hy  him  in 
the  purchase.  The  visit  must  have  been 
of  some  days,  possibly  of  some  weeks 
duration.     The    time    harmonizes    per- 


110         THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGEli   WILLIAMS 

fectly  witli  the  time  of  the  great  immer- 
sion. It  was  ill  the  spring  of  1638. 
(The  civil  compact  at  Aquidneck  was 
signed  March  7,  1638.)  That  is  exactly 
the  time  when  it  is  now  generally 
believed  that  the  Providence  cbnrch  was 
organized.  What  more  natnral  than 
that  Roger  Williams  slionld  have  taken 
advantage  of  the  presence  of  tliese  guests, 
who  like  himself  were  Separatists,  and 
allowed  liis  separatism  to  reach  its 
logical  outcome  ?  What  more  natnral 
than  tliat  tliis  visit  of  men  not  wholly 
nnsympathetic  shonld  have  furnished 
the  longed-for  opportunity  for  his  ripened 
faith  to  make  its  public  profession  ? 
The  public  had  now  come,  in  the  provi- 
dence of  God,  and  Williams  and  his 
companions  may  have  hailed  the  hour, 
when  they  could  openly  declare  their 
full    sul)mission   to   Christ   and    the    in- 


THE   BAPT18M    UF   liOGEU   ^ViLLlAMS  111 

stitutions  of  primitive  Christianity,  and 
re-establish  in  the  wilderness  of  the  new 
^\  orld  the  church  of  the  New  Testament. 
AMiat  more  natural  than  that  they  should 
have  felt  that  they  were  not  only  acting 
for  themselves,  but  setting  an  example 
which  sh(Mdd  soon  be  followed  in  the 
new  settlement  do^vn  the  Xarragansett 
Bay !  It  is  by  no  means  improljable  that 
Jolin  Clarke,  and  William  Coddinirton 
and  their  associates  may  have  been  eye- 
witnesses of  this  first  Providence  baptism, 
and  that  Coddington  in  liis  testimony, 
ii'iven  later  in  life,  mav  liave  been  de- 
daring  simply  that  \\hich  he  had  seen 
with  his  own  eyes  and  looked  upon,  of 
the  manifestation  of  tliat  new,  free, 
spiritual  life  which,  in  America  as  in 
England,  was  bursting  through  human 
eml)ankments  and  seeking  divinely  ap- 
pointed     channels.       The      Aquidneck 


112         THE   BAPTISM   OF  KOGEE   AYILLIAMS 

settlers  could  not  have  foro^otten  the 
impress! v^e  lesson  photographed  upon 
their  minds.  Through  them  the  news 
could  have  l)een  carried  to  John  Win- 
throp  and  the  Boston  churcli,  for  they 
I'emained  for  a  time  in  communication 
with  it,  a  thing  which  was  not  true  of 
the  Providence  church  ;  and  in  due  time 
the  lesson  learned  by  the  migrating  col- 
onists, (who  went  out  in  faith,  not  know- 
ing Avhither  tliey  Avent,)  as  they  jour- 
neyed tlirough  the  wilderness,  brouglit 
forth  its  legitimate  fruit  in  th.eir  new 
settlement,  and  the  second  Baptist  church 
in  Amei'ica  came  into  being  in  NcAvport. 
If  probabilities  are  to  be  indulged  in, 
they  should  certainly  be  such  as  are  not 
unreasonable,  do  not  make  exorl^itant 
demands  npon  the  imagination,  and  fit 
in  with  all  the  knoAvn  facts  of  the  his- 
tory, so  that  there  may  be  presented  a 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  EOGER  WILLIAMS    113 

consistent  and  harmonious  picture  of  the 
beginnings  of  Baptist  cliurcli  life  in 
New  Eno-hand.  But  wliatever  nia\'  l)e 
the  probabilities,  the  testimony  of  ^\'il- 
liam  Coddington  is  impregnable,  and 
taken  with  all  the  other  confirmatory 
evidence  proves  beyond  a  question  tliat 
lioger  Williams  was  immersed. 

Dr.  A.  H.  Newman,  in  harmony  with 
what  has  just  been  said,  speaks  of  Cod- 
dington as  one  "  ^vho  seems  to  have  wit- 
nessed the  ceremony,  and  described  it 
sometime  afterward  as  iramersi(Mi.'' 

It  seems  unnecessary  to  adduce  any 
other  evidence  in  proof  of  a  fact  already 
so  ^vell  established.  But  there  is  a  third 
line  of  evidence  wjiich  has  its  peculiar 
Aveight  and  signiiicance,  and  without 
Avhich  our  discussion  wcndd  seem  in- 
complete. This  is  found  in  the  unvary- 
ing and  univei'sal  belief  in  the  immersion 


114         THE   BAPTISM   OF  EOGER  WILLIAMS 

of  Koger  Williams.  Rev.  John  Calleii- 
der  of  Newport  was  at  one  time  led  to 
donbt,  not  the  immersion  of  Williams 
l)nt  his  active  agency  in  the  formation 
of  '^  a  chnrch  of  the  Anabaptists "  and 
his  identification  with  it.  But  this  "  sns. 
picion  ^'  of  his,  for  it  was  never  anything 
more,  he  subsequently  abandoned,  as  is 
believed  on  what  is  declared  to  be  his 
own  authorization. 

Until  aljout  the  year  1880,  at  which 
time  the  question  of  the  late  introduc- 
tion of  immersion  among  the  English 
Baptists  w^as  raised,  the  uniform  tradi- 
tional belief  was  that  the  First  church 
in  Providence  was  a  genuine  Baptist 
church  from  the  beginning,  and  that 
Roger  Williams  was  a  constituent  mem- 
ber of  it,  and  its  first  pastor.  When 
Di\  AVliitsitt  says  ^'The  most  reliable 
tradition  on  this  subject  has  followed  the 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGEH   WILLIAMS         115 

lead  of  Wintlirop  and  Peters,  rather  tliaii 
that  of  Coddinofton ''  we  are  not  certain 
that  ^\'e  understand  what  lie  means,  for 
if  what  he  seems  to  say  is  ^vhat  he  means 
to  say,  it  is  far  outside  the  bounds  of 
of  correct  statement.  There  has  been 
no  other  tradition  than  that  under  the 
lead  of  Coddington.  Winthrop  and 
Peters  have  never  Ijeen  regarded  as  lead- 
ing anywhere,  that  is,  as  speaking  au- 
thoritatively, as  to  the  mode  of  Williams' 
baptism.  If  Dr.  AVhitsitt  intended  to 
say  that  the  traditional  belief  is  not,  in 
his  judgment,  reliable,  he  should  have 
used  other  words.  But  when  he  seems 
to  speak  of  a  tradition  as  to  the  sprink- 
ling of  Williams  based  upon  the  lan- 
guage of  \A  inthrop  and  Peters,  and  calls 
it  the  most  reliable  tradition,  he  is  speak- 
iucr  of  a  tradition  which  has  never  had 
any  existence  outside  of  the  limits  of  his 


116         THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGER   WILLIAMS 

own  study  or  lecture  room.  And  when 
he  proceeds  to  say  that  Backus,  Stanford, 
Benedict,  Hague,  Cramp,  Vedder  and 
Burrage  "  are  all  in  accord  with  this 
[imaginary]  tradition  since  each  uses  the 
word  baptize,  and  avoids  the  woixl  dip 
or  immerse,"  such  a  claim  takes  one's 
breath  away  in  astonishment.  Not  one 
of  them  would  plead  guilty  to  the  cliarge 
here  made.  These  historians  have  liad 
no  more  doubt  of  Roger  Williams'  im- 
mersion than  they  have  had  of  their  own, 
and  have  reo-arded  it  as  no  more  neces- 
sary  to  define  what  they  meant  when 
speaking  of  the  baptism  of  Williams 
than  when  speaking  of  the  baptism  of 
Chi-ist.  They  never  expected  to  be  mis- 
understood ^vhen  so  using  the  word 
^^  baptism,"  and  they  never  have  been 
misunderstood  before. 

The  truth  is,  tliat  all  Baptist  writers 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   llOGEK   AVILLIAMS         117 

have  looked  upon  the  baptism  of  Wil- 
liams, in  the  Baptist  acceptation  of  the 
word,  as  a  settled  fact.  It  has  never 
been  discussed  before,  because  it  has 
never  been  questioned  before.  To  doubt 
the  immersion  of  the  first  settlers  in 
Providence,  including  Roger  Williams, 
at  \Adiat  was  called  their  "re-baptism," 
and  of  the  Anabaptists  at  Newport, 
wlien  thev  entered  into  church  relation- 
ship,  as  Dr.  Whitsitt  does,  is  to  antago- 
nize the  positive  belief  of  the  whole 
denomination  in  this  country  from  its 
earliest  expression  until  now.  If  a  re- 
sprinkling  had  preceded  the  rite  of  im- 
mersion in  the  practice  of  either  church, 
it  is  incredil^le  that  John  Clarke,  or  John 
Comer,  or  John  Callender,  or  some  of 
the  earliest  Providence  writers,  should 
not  have  mentioned  it.  The  utter 
absence    in   colonial   literature   of    any 


118         THE   BAPTI8M   OF   liOGElt   ^YILLIAMS 

intimation  oL  such  a  fact  is  certainly 
significant.  But  there  is  positive  testi- 
mony that  covers  the  whole  period  of 
Baptist  history  in  New  England. 

Pardon  Tillinghast,  who  came  to  Prov- 
idence in  1(344,  and  must  have  been 
acquainted  with  the  character  of  the 
church  from  the  beginning,  in  a  deed  to 
the  church  in  1711,  of  the  meetinghouse 
which  he  had  built,  described  its  mem- 
bers as  those  who  "are  baptized  in  water 
and  have  hands  laid  on  them,"  and  in 
no  way  intimates  that  they  had  not 
been  such  from  the  origin  of  the 
church.  The  preamble  to  the  charter  of 
"  The  Charitable  Baptist  Society "  con- 
nected with  this  church,  which  ^vas 
granted  in  1774,  contains  the  following 
words,  "being  the  oldest  Christian 
church  in  the  State  or  colony,  and  pro- 
fessing to  believe    that    water    baptism 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   EOGER   WILLIA:MS         119 

oiiglit  to  be  administered  by  immersion 
only,"  language  wliich  implies  that  this 
was  a  characteristic  of  the  church  from 
the  beginning,  and  a  l)elief  on  which  it 
was  founded.  Stephen  Hopkins,  Gov- 
ernor of  the  State  and  sio:ner  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  writing  in » 
1765,  expressed  the  conviction  that  the 
Providence  settlers  iirst  organized  a 
church  after  the  Congregational  model, 
and  then  added,  "But  it  did  not  con- 
tinue long  in  this  form,  for  most  of  its 
members  very  soon  embraced  the  prin- 
ciples and  practices  of  the  Baptists  [that 
is,  of  course,  the  principles  and  prac- 
tices of  the  Baptists  as  now  understood] 
and  some  time  earlier  than  1689,  gath- 
ered and  formed  a  church  at  Providence 
of  that  society.'' 

As  evidence  that  in  this  country,  at 
least,  the  avo^ved  Anabaptists  were  all 


120         THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS 

immersionists,  we  quote  the  following 
statement  of  belief  from  the  able 
"  Memorial  and  Remonstrance  ''  asrainst 
oppi'essive  religious  legislation,  presented 
by  the  Baptists  to  the  Assembly  in 
Boston,  in  May  1754 — ''always  hereto- 
fore ....  the  people  commonly 
called  Anabaptists,  in  all  places  where 
thev  reside,  as  well  in  this  Province  as 
everywhere  else,  were  looked  upon  as 
such  by  professing  themselves  to  be  of 
that  persuasion,  ....  as  also  by 
their  distinguishing  characteristic  of  im- 
mersing or  dipping  the  person  bajDtized 
in  water."  The  men  who  prej^ared  this 
Kemonstrance,  only  seventy-one  yeai's 
after  the  death  of  Williams,  bore  wit- 
ness to  the  universal  belief  that  always 
and  everywhei'e,  at  least  in  New  Eng- 
land, from  the  time  of  their  founder  to 
their  time,  a  distinguishing  characteristic 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  KOGER  WILLIAMS    121 

of  the  x\iial)aptists  had  been  their 
method  of  haptisin.  They  were  called 
Anabaptists  in  this  country  down  to  the 
last  half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It 
is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  these 
men,  who  stood  but  one  remove  from  the 
Baptist  pioneers,  were  mistaken.  That 
belief  has  not  chano-ed  from  their  time 
to  ours.  There  is  to-day  the  same  con- 
sensus of  opinion  that  the  eai'liest 
avowed  Anabaptists  in  America  occu- 
pied, in  the  matter  of  essential  faith  and 
practice,  full  Baptist  positions.  And 
Roger  Williams  cannot  be  separated 
from   their  fellowship. 

But  there  have  been  unnumbered 
Baptist  writers  who,  Avhenever  it  has 
seemed  necessary  to  express  themselves 
with  special  precision  in  the  mattei', 
have  given  utterance  to  the  unvarying 
belief  in  Williams^  inunersion.    Knowles 


122         THE   BAPTISM   OF   EOGEIl   AYILLIAMS 

ill  his  '^Life  of  Roger  AVilliams,"  and 
Ganimell  in  bis,  Caldwell  in  Lis  "  His- 
torical Discourse  "  delivered  at  the  two 
hundred  and  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the 
Providence  church,  Arniitage  and  New- 
man in  their  Histories  of  the  Baptists 
pul)lished  since  this  (piestion  ^\'as  opened, 
Guild  in  his  '^  Early  History  of  Brown 
University,  including  Life,  Times  and 
Correspondence  of  President  Manning," 
and  many  other  authors  have  expressed 
themselves  in  a  way  to  leave  even  Dr. 
Whitsitt  no  chance  to  misunderstand 
them,  and  their  lano^uao-e  has  excited  no 
comment,  for  it  has  been  in  harmony 
^N-itli  the  universal  con\'iction.  They 
certainly  cannot  be  charged  with  hav- 
ing ''avoided  the  ^vords  dip  or  inunerse." 
The  conviction  outside  of  the  denom- 
ination has  ne\er  differed  from  that 
within,  and  its  utterance  Avill  be  found 


THE   BAPTISM   0¥  liOGEK   WILLIAMS         123 

to  be  sufficiently  definite  to  satisfy  the 
most  critical  and  exacting.  Rev.  Dr. 
Ezra  Stiles,  pastor  of  the  Congregational 
Church  in  Newport  from  1755  to  1778, 
and  sul)se(|uently  President  of  Yale  Col- 
leo-e  luitil  his  death  in  1705,  in  an  un- 
published  manuscript  now  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  church  which  he  sei'ved,  says 
of  Rocker  Williams:  "In  1G3V)  he  and 
his  church  renounced  their  l)aptism  and 
were  baptized  by  plunging.  Brother 
Ilolliman  first  plunging  ]\Lr.  AVilliams, 
and  then  Mr.  Williams  in  turn  [)lunging 
the  rest  or  must  of  tJiein.''      "lie  goes  on 

*Tlie  Baptist  movement  in  Providence  is  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  if  it  embraced  the  entire  popnlation  of 
the  place,  meeting  with  no  opposition  and  reqniring 
no  courageous  conviction.  There  was  indeed  religious 
lil)erty,  but  not  religious  unanimity.  In  civil  and  also 
in  religious  matters  there  were  great  differences  of 
opinion.  Says  Henry  C.  Dorr  (R.  I.  Hist.  So.,  Coll. 
IX,  10  )"The  majority  manifested  little  sympathy  with 
Williams,  except  in  his  negative  opinion  as  to  what  the 


124    THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS 

to  say:  "The  iirst  cliiireh  in  Newport 
was  gathered  there  in  1640,  and  was 
Congregational  and  Pedobaptist  under 
Dr.  Clarke,  its  elder,  and  continued  for 
about  fonr  years,  when  it  became  Bap- 
tist also,"  that  is,  in  the  same  way,  by 
adopting  "plnnging." 

Joseph  B.  Felt  (Ecclesiastical  History 
of  New  England,  Vol.  I.,  p.  402)  says  : 
"Having  become  an  Anabaptist,  through 
the  influence  of  a  sister  to  Mrs.  Hutchin- 
son and  wife  to  Richard  Scott,  who  went 
to  live  at  Providence  the  preceding  year, 
Williams,  as  stated  by  Winthrop,  Avas 

State  should  not  do.  No  religious  society  was  organ- 
ized until  the  autumn  [?]  of  1638.  Out  of  nearly  sixty 
householders  only  twelve  united  with  Williams  in  its 
formation.  During  the  whole  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  its  members  were  a  small  minorit}'  of  the 
townsmen,  and  numbered  so  few  adherents  that  they 
met  in  the  small  dwellings  in  those  days,  and  a 
meeting-house  was  not  required  until  A.  D.  1700." 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGEll   WILLIAMS      ,  125 

lately  iiiiinersed.  The  [)ers()n  ^^'llo  per- 
formed tins  rite  for  him  was  Ezekiel 
Ilolman,  who  had  gone  to  reside  there 
from  Salem.  Williams  then  did  the 
same  for  him  and  ten  otliers,  and  thus 
thev  formed  a  ehnreh/'  This  lano:aa£]:e 
is  interesting,  not  only  as  showing  the 
general  belief  of  students  of  colonial 
liistory  in  the  immersion  of  AVilliams, 
but  also  the  interpretation  ^^hich,  in 
their  judgment,  should  be  put  upon 
the  langnage  of  AA  inthrop  and  Peters, 
tlie  "rel)aptism;'  of  which  Dr.  Whitsitt 
endeavors  to  make  so  mucli. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pliilip  Schaff,  than  ^vh(^m 
no  modern  historian  is  more  worthy  of 
confidence,  says  (Creeds  of  Christendom, 
I.,  851)  :  "In  1(338  he  became  a  Baptist; 
he  ^vas  immersed  by  Ezekiel  H(^lliman, 
and  in  turn  immersed  Holliman  and  ten 
others." 


12G    THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS 

Professor  George  P.  Fislier,  the  al)le 
instructor  in  the  chair  of  Ecclesiastical 
History  in  Yale  College  says,  (The 
Colonial  Era,  p.  143)  "In  1638  AVilliams 
was  immersed  l)y  an  Anabaptist  named 
Holyman,  and  then  he  himself  immersed 
Holy  man  and  ten  others.  There  was 
thus  constituted  tlie  first  Baptist  church 
in  America." 

But  wliy  multiply  quotations  ?  The 
evidence  is  all  one  waj.  The  testimony 
is  unanimous.  There  lias  been  but  one 
traditional  belief  among  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists.  Whether  they  have  called 
the  rite  to  which  AVilliams  and  his  com- 
panions submitted  in  Providence  in  1638, 
a  rebaptism,  a  new  baptism,  another  bap- 
tism, an  immersion,  a  dipping  or  a  plung- 
ing, they  have  all  meant  the  same  thing. 
And  until  diiferent  and  indisputal^le  evi- 
dence to  the  conti'ary  is  discovered,  until 


THE    BAJ'TISM    OF   KOGER   WILLIAMS         1*27 

new  liglit  comes  from  some  unexpected 
quarter,  the  belief  of  the  past  ^^'hich  has 
remained  unshaken  for  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  will  be  likely  to  be  the  belief 
of  the  futnre. 

Professor  Henry  C.  Vedder,  in  "  The 
Examiner'^  of  May  21,  1896,  says,  "In 
fine,  anybody  \\ho  asserts  that  anything 
but  immersion  has  been  practiced  fi'om 
the  beginning  among  American  Baptists 
assumes  the  burden  of  proof;  and  in- 
genious gnesses  about  Mark  Lucar  and 
things  of  that  sort  are  not  proofs.  They 
may  satisfy  the  guesser,  l)ut  he  cannot 
fairly  ask  that  anybody  else  should  l)e 
satisfied  with  them." 

AVe  have,  then,  an  accumuhition  of 
testimou}^  in  support  of  tlie  fact  of  the 
immersion  of  Roger  AVilliams,  which  is 
trustworthy  and  convincing;  first,  the 
fact  of   a  rebaptism   being  established, 


128    THE  BAPTISM  OF  ROGER  WILLIAMS 

the  evidence  from  liis  own  nnequivocal 
language  as  to  the  nature  of  baptism, 
giv^en  shortly  after  he  submitted  to  the 
rite,  and  repeated  down  to  the  end  of  his 
life ;  secondly,  the  testimony  of  his  con- 
temporaries which  is  remarkably  clear 
and  positive,  and  has  peculiar  ^veight  as 
coming  from  those  who  ^vere  associated 
with  him  in  the  act, or  were  eye  witnesses 
of  it,  and  which  can  only  be  met  by  the 
charges  of  weakened  memory  or  wilful 
falsification,  to  make  either  of  ^vhich 
^vould  seem  to  be  to  resort  to  a  desperate 
method  of  escaping  un\velcome  evidence; 
and  thirdly,  the  uniform,  unvarying  be- 
lief among  all  denominations  of  Christ- 
ians and  all  historical  writers,  for  t^vo 
centuries  and  a  half.  It  may  be  said 
that  no  fact  of  colonial  history  is  better 
supported  than  this. 

It  should  be  added,  moreover,  that  if 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   KOGER   WILLIAMS         129 

Roger  Williams  and  Lis  companions 
were  not  immersed  when  tliey  ^vere 
"  rebaptized/'  we  have  not  tlie  slightest 
intimation  as  to  the  time  Avhen  s[)rink- 
ling  or  pouring  gave  place  to  immersion 
in  the  Baptist  church  in  Providence. 
This  mother  church  will  rightly  decline, 
after  having  traced  for  two  hundred  and 
fifty-nine  years  its  unbroken  existence 
to  Roo'er  Williams  as  its  founder  and  to 
liis  act  of  obedience  to  Christ^s  com- 
mand, to  surrender  its  cherished  belief, 
established  by  all  discoverable  testi- 
mony, at  the  demand  of  an  inference 
weakened  by  a  sea  voyage  of  three 
thousand  miles,  and  unsustained  by  any 
fair  interpretation  of  local  evidence.  It 
is  no  wonder  that  the  author  of  this 
inference  finds  himself  standing  alone, 
and  conspicuous  by  reason  of  his  solitari- 
ness.    The  whole  Baptist  denomination 


130         THE   BAPTISM   OF  ROGER   WILLIAMS 

in  this  country  will  not  readily  blind  its 
eyes  to  tlie  abundant  proof  that  the 
great  exponent  of  religions  liberty  in 
America,  acknowledged  to  be  such  by 
all  statesmen  and  historians,  was  in- 
timately and  instrumentally  connected 
with  the  beginnings  of  its  history  here. 
It  is  not  sentiment  that  influences  us,  but 
historic  proof,  when  we  write  after  the 
name  of  Roger  Williams,  "the  founder 
of  religious  liberty  and  pioneer  Baptist 
in  this  new  world." 

The  question  of  the  nature  of  the 
baptism  of  Roger  Williams  is  more  than 
a  historic  question.  It  has  no  l^earing 
at  all  upon  the  integrity  of  the  Baptist 
denomination  in  America,  or  the  validity 
of  their  rites.  American  Baptists  have 
an  existence,  and  the  fundamental 
question  is,  not  how  or  when  they  came 
into    being,    but    do    their    views    and 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  KOGEK  WILLIAMS    131 

practices  confoi-m  to  the  will  of  Christ 
as  made  known  in  his  Word?  Onr 
solicitude  should  be,  not  to  find  the  con- 
necting link  between  the  new  world's 
religious  systems  and  forms  and  rites, 
and  those  of  the  old  world,  Ijut  to  main- 
tain a  vital  nnion  with  Christ,  the  great 
Head  of  the  Chnrch,  by  the  possession 
of  his  Spirit  and  unswerving  loyalty  to 
his  commandments. 

But  the  cpiestion  of  AMlliams'  bap- 
tism involves  other  and  vastly  important 
questions.  To  what  convictions,  and  to 
what  conduct,  will  the  Word  of  God 
lead,  when  placed  in  the  hands  of  intel- 
ligent and  conscientious  men  like  AVil- 
liams  and  Clarke,  in  a  free  atmosphere, 
removed  from  ecclesiastical  boudao;e  and 
oppression,  and  even  from  Puritan  intim- 
idation and  its  stern  purpose  to  preserve 
by  force  uniformit}'   of  faith  aiid  prac- 


132         THE   BAPTISM   OF  ROGER  AVILLIAMS 

tice  ?  And  also,  have  enlightened  souls 
which  have  been  led  by  God's  Spirit  to 
a  truer  and  more  spiritual  interpretation 
of  Christian  truth,  the  power  and.  the 
right  to  break  away  Avholly  from  hoary 
errors  and  human  customs,  which  have 
usurped  the  place  of  divine  institutions, 
and,  of  themselves  and  by  themselves, 
to  organize  under  their  new  faitlis,  and 
re-establish  in  the  wilderness  the  insti- 
tutions of  primitive  Christianity? 

These  questions  Koger  Williams  an- 
swered. God's  Word  and  God's  Spirit 
w^ere  his  teachers,  and  he  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  freedom  from  human  authority 
and  traditional  interpretations,  came  to 
hold  new,  and  spiritual,  and  consistent 
views  of  Christian  truth,  and  the  Christ- 
ian church.  God's  Word  had  free 
course  in  him,  and  the  outcome  was  sig- 
nificant. •   It  revealed  the  results  of  un- 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   WILLIAMS        133 

hindered  triitJi,  working  in  untrammeled 
souls.     iVnd  then  lie  assumed  the  ricrht, 
regardless  of  human  precedent  or  eccle- 
siastical sanction,  to  let  his  new  life  and 
faith  clothe  themselves  in  divine  forms 
which  had  been  lost,  and  flow  in  divine 
channels  Avhich  liad  been    closed.     His 
separation  from  the  past  was  completed 
in  his  baptism.     The  Jordan  of  his  bap- 
tism ^vas  wider  than  the  ocean  which  he 
had    crossed,    and   it   could   not  be  re- 
crossed.     It  is  true  that,  after  a   little, 
reflecting    upon    the    great   and   solemn 
res2)onsibility  which  he  had  taken  upon 
himself,  he  doubted    and  shrank   back. 
But  the  deed  had  been  done.     The  step 
had    been   taken,  and   could   not  be  re- 
traced.    He  had  inaugurated  the  move- 
ment, which  was  to  move  on  under  its 
own   divine  impulse.     He   had  planted 
the  seed,  and  he  could  not  stay  the  har- 


10 


134         THE   BAPTISM   OF   ROGER   \YILLIAMS 

vest,  if  he  would.  In  spiritual  tilings, 
as  in  civil,  Roger  Williams  was  God's 
chosen  instrument. 

It  has  not  been  pleasant  to  give  to 
this  discussion  the  personal  character 
which  seemed  unavoidable,  inasmuch  as 
Dr.  Whitsitt  stands  alone  in  the  advo- 
cacy of  his  theory,  and  cannot  be  dis- 
sociated from  the  inference  which  he 
has  originated,  and  the  defence  which 
he  has  attempted.  For  Dr.  Whitsitt's 
personal  character  and  scholarly  attain- 
ments we  have  only  the  highest  regard. 
But  we  think  he  has  entirely  misinter- 
preted the  facts  of  history,  and  has 
shown  a  sad  lack  of  appreciation  of 
the  conspicuous  character  and  service 
of  Roger  Williams,  who,  whatever  may 
have  been  his  imperfections,  was  cer- 
tainly one  of  the  immortiil  builders  of 
this    nation,    and    whose    name,    it    has 


THE   BAPTISM   OF   liOGEli   W[LLL\MS         135 

been  said,  is  ^\'o^thy  to  stand  side  by 
side  with  that  of  Washington  himself. 
As  the  courageous  expounder  of  civil 
and  religious  liberty,  of  the  right  of  pri- 
vate judgment  and  absolute  freedom  in 
matters  of  religious  faith,  and  of  the 
spiritual  conception  of  a  New  Testa- 
ment cluirch,  he  is  worthy  of  the  grat- 
itude of  this  He  public  and  of  the 
reverence  of    Christendom. 


JAMES  S.  SLATER 
SLATERSVILLE,      ' 
RHODE  ISLAND.  ' 


INDEX. 

Adult  Immersion,  believed  iu  by  early  set- 
tlers, 14,  46,  48,  68 ;  by  Cliauncy  18,  49-51. 

Anabaptism,  its  meaning"  53 ;  early  existence 
and  wide  diffusion  in  America  51-53,  56  ; 

Anabaptists,  immersionists  in  Europe  11 ; 
persecuted  32 ;  immersionists  in  this 
country  51-53,  56,  120,  124;  persecuted 
55. 

Armitage,  Dr.  Thomas,  testimony  to  Wil- 
liams' immersion,  122. 

Aquidneck,  settled,  99. 

Backus,  Isaac,  116. 

Baillie,  14. 

Baptism  of  Boger  Williams,  more  than  a 
question  of  history,  130-134. 

Barber,  Edward,  27,  36. 

Benedict,  Dr.  David,  60,  116. 

Blake,  an  English  clergyman,  on  infant  im- 
mersion, 12. 


138  INDEX 

Blount,  Eicliard,  36. 

Boston,  First  Baptist   cliurcli  organized  in, 

63,  64. 
Bradford,  Governor, '42. 
Burrage,  Dr.  Henry  S.,  3,  50,  116. 
Busher,  Leonard,  25. 

Caldwell,  Dr.  S.  L.,  quoted,  17,  18,  122. 

Oallender,  Eev.  John,  114,  117. 

Cliauncy,  Pres.  Charles,  iDracticed  infant  im- 
mersion, 17,  18 ;  believed  in  adult  im- 
mersion, 17,  18;  his  position  discussed, 
38-50  ;  invited  to  Providence,  93. 

"  Christenings  make  not  Christians,"  73,  76. 

Clarke,  Dr.  John,  61,  68,  84,  85,  99,  100,  109, 
111,  117,  124,  131. 

Cobbett,  Thomas,  53. 

Coddington,  William,  71  ;  testifies  to  Wil- 
liams' immersion,  99-113,  115. 

Comer,  Bev.  John,  117. 

Confession  of  the  Seven  Churches,  13. 

Cotton,  John,  53,  56. 

Cramp,  Dr.  J.  M.,  116. 

Crosby,  15. 


INDEX  139 

Dexter,  Dr.  Heury  M.,  3,  9,  33,  81,  104,  105. 

Doit,  Heiiiy  C,  on  the  Baptist  movement  in 
Providence,  123  ;  foot  note. 

Dunster,  Pres.  Henry,  rejected  infant  bap- 
tism, 17  ;  pastor  at  Scituate,  47. 

Epwortb  and  Crowle  Records,  20. 

Featley,  treatment  of  b}^  Dr.  Whitsitt,  18,  19 ; 
testimony  in  favor  of  immersion  of  Eng- 
lish Baptists,  19  ;  quoted,  22,  23. 

Felt,  Joseph  B.,  testimony  to  the  immersion 
of  Williams  and  his  companions,  124 ; 
to  the  meaning  of  Anabaptism  and  of 
AViuthrop's  "  rebaptism,"  125. 

Fisher,  Prof.  George  P.,  testimony  to  the 
immersion  of  Williams  and  his  com- 
panions, and  the  origin  of  the  First 
Baptist  church  in  America,  126. 

Fox,  George,  92,  102. 

Fuller,  Dr.  Thomas,  26. 

Gammell,  Prof.  William,  testimony  to  Wil- 
liams' immersion,  122. 


140  INDEX 

General  Court  of  Massachusetts,  complaint 
against  Plymouth,  69. 

Grantham,  Thomas,  25. 

Guild,  R.euben,  L.  L.  D.,  testimony  to  Wil- 
liams' immersion  and  the  Baptist  char- 
acter of  the  Providence  church  from  the 
first,  122. 

Hague,  William,  D.  D.,  116. 

Holliman,  Ezekiel,  immersed  Williams  and 
was  immersed  by  him,  123,  125,  126. 

Hooker,  Thomas,  53,  56,  93. 

Hopkins,  Gov.  Stephen,  testimony  as  to  the 
origin  and  character  of  the  First  Bap- 
tist church  in  Providence,  119. 

Howe,  Bev.  Samuel,  57,  58. 

Hutchinson,  Mrs.  Anne,  95,  124. 

Infant  Immersion,  practice  in  England,  11, 
12 ;  and  in  America,  14,  17,  38,  48,  49,  68. 

Jessey  Church  Becords,  18,  19,  20,  21. 
Johnson's  New  Universal  CycloxD^edia,  articles 
in,  4,  5. 


INDEX  141 

Eaffen  Manuscript,  20,  and  foot  note,  20,  21. 
King,  Dr.  AV.  H.,  28. 

Knowles,  Prof.  James  D.,  testimony  to  Wil- 
liams' immersion,  121. 

Lentliall,  Robert,  60. 

Lothrop,  Rev.  John,  -17,  48,  52. 

Lucar,  Mark,  36,  61,  62,  68,  84,  89,  93,  127. 

Mather,  Cotton,  52. 

Memorial  and  Remonstrance,  presented  by 
the  Baptists  to  the  Assend)ly  in  Boston, 
declaring  their  unchanged  attitude,  120. 

Miles,  John,  63. 

Morton,  Nathaniel,  67. 

Neal,  14,  15. 

Newman,  Dr.  Albert  H.,  104-106,  113,  122. 

Newport,   date   of    origin   of    First   Baptist 

church,  61 ;  the  second  in  America,  112  ; 

how  it  originated,  124. 

Partridge,  Rev.  Mr.,  45. 

Peters,  Rev.  Hugh,  66,  71,  92,  108, 115,  125. 

Philips,  George,  53. 


142  INDEX 

Piimock,  Dr.  W.  H.,  24. 

Plymouth,  cliurcli  in,  not  opposed  to  infant 
immersion,  44. 

Prayer  Book,  referred  to,  11,  105. 

Providence,  First  Baptist  cliurcli  in,  organ- 
ized under  Williams'  leadership,  59,  65 ; 
the  beginning  of  a  general  movement, 
60-65 ;  no  difference  between  it  and  the 
Newport  church,  84-86  ;  character  well 
known  in  1640,  94;  a  genuine  Baptist 
church  from  the  beginning,  65,  114,  117- 
130. 

Rebaptism,  meaning,  70,  125,  126. 
Rogers,  Daniel,  27. 

Scliaff,  Dr.  Philip,  testimony  to  the  immer- 
sion of  Williams  and  his  companions, 
125. 

Scott,  Richard,  contemporary  testimony  to 
Williams'  immersion,  95-98, 124. 

Seekonk,  immersion  there  in  1649,  62,  68 ;  ac- 
count of  by  Williams  84. 

Shepard,  Thomas,  52,  56,  93. 

Smyth,  John,  59, 


INDEX  14;-) 

Spilsbnry,  JoIid,  47. 

Stanford,  Rev.  Joliu,  116. 

Stanley,  A.  P.,  foot  note,  11. 

Stiles,  Dr.  Ezra,  testimony  to  tlie  immersion 

of  Williams   and  -bis   companions,  123  ; 

and  to  the  oriofin  of  tlie  Baptist  chnrcli 

in  Newport,  124. 
Swansea,  Ba^^tist  church  in,  63. 

The  Charitable  Baptist  Society,  belief  in  the 
practice  of  the  Providence  church  from 
the  beginning,  118. 

"  The  Examiner,"  articles  in,  4,  127. 

"  The  Independent,"  articles  in,  3,  4. 

"  The  Mother  Church,"  quoted,  103-106. 

"  The  Sum  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  24. 

"The  Western  Recorder,"  article  in  quoted, 
13,  foot  note. 

Thomas,  Dr.  Jesse  B.,  quoted,  13. 

Tillinghast,  Pardon,  testimony  to  the  earl}^ 
character  of  the  First  church  in  Provi- 
dence, 118. 

"  Treatise  of  the  two  Sacraments,"  27-32. 

Vedder,  Prof.  Henry  C,  116 ;    belief   in  the 


144  INDEX 

practice  of  immersion  from  the   begin- 
ning among  American  Baptists,  127. 

Westminster  Assembly,  action  of  on  bap- 
tism, 12. 

Whitsitt,  Dr.  W.  H.,  view  of  Williams'  bap- 
tism, 5,  7 ;  denies  that  Anaba^^tists  prac- 
ticed immersion,  11 ;  follows  Dr.  Dexter, 
10,  15,  33,  81 ;  picture  of  sixteenth  cen- 
tury inaccurate,  10-14 ;  unjustifiable  use 
of  authorities,  15-21 ;  omission  of  docu- 
ments, 21-32  :  position  indefensible,  15, 
32  ;  inference  as  to  Roger  Williams  un- 
warranted, 33  sq. ;  his  view  of  rebaptism, 
60 ;  inference  disproved  by  Williams' 
known  views,  72-92 ;  by  the  testimony  of 
his  contemporaries,  92-113 ;  by  the  un- 
varying belief,  113-127. 

Williams,  Roger,  character  of,  34-37 ;  a  child 
of  his  age,  35,  57 ;  development,  57-60 ; 
records  of  bai^tism  of,  66,  67  ;  his  im- 
mersion proved  by  his  expressed  convic- 
tions, 72-92 ;  by  the  testimony  of  con- 
temporaries, 92-113 ;  by  the  uniform 
tradition,    113-127  ;     founder    of    First 


INDEX  145 

Baptist  cliurcli  iu  Providence,  65,  114, 
125,  126 ;  and  its  first  pastor,  114 ;  sum- 
mary of  evidence  for  Lis  immersion,  127- 
130 ;  founder  of  religious  liberty,  130 ; 
God's  chosen  instrument,  132-131. 

Wilson,  John,  56, 

Winslow,  Governor,  52. 

Winthrop,  Governor,  38,  41,  47,  60,  6(i,  71,  92, 
94,  95,  108,  115,  124,  125. 


MARY    DYER 

OF  RHODE  ISLAND, 

The  Quakek  Martyr  that  was  Hanged  ox  Boston 
Common,  June  1,  16G0. 


By     HORATIO    ROGERS. 
Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Rhode  Island. 


The  author  has  feathered  from  many  sources  the 
scattered  facts  relating  to  the  career  of  Mary  Dyer 
and  woven  them  into  a  detailed  narrative,  so  that 
the  tragic  story  of  her  life  is  now  for  the  first  time 
adequately  told.  By  addiniz:  a  brief  but  compre- 
hensive sketch  of  the  manner  and  sentiments  of 
her  times  he  has  furnished  a  background  or  frame- 
work for  his  subject  which  adds  much  to  the  in 
terest  of  the  volume  by  enabling  the  reader  the 
better  to  understand  the  surroundings  of  the  char- 
acters he  portra3^s.  The  important  documents  re- 
lating to  her  trial  are  i^rinted  in  fhe  appendix. 

Cloth,   12mo.,  115  pages.     Price  fl.OO  n«t. 

Sent  postpaid  upon  receipt  of  price  by  the  pub- 
lishers. 

lo 


A  Summer  Visit  of  Three  Rhode  Islanders 
to  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  I65L 


By   henry  MELVILLE  KING, 
Pastor  of  the  First  Uaplist  C  Lurch,  Providence,  R.  I. 


Cloth,  12mo.,  115  pages.     Price  $1.00  Det. 

Uniform  with  "Maky  Dyek." 


An  account  of  the  visit  of  De,  John  Clakke, 
Obadiah  Holmes  and  John  Ckandall,  membeiis 
of  the  Baptist  Chukch  in  Neavpoet,  R.  I.,  to 
William  Wittek  of  Swampscott,  Mass.,  in  July, 
1651  :  its  innocent  pukpose  and  its  painful  con- 
sequences. 


"  Dr.  King's  iningent  and  coLckisive  essay  is  a 
time]}'  contribution.  Ee  adduces  comi>etent  evi- 
dence refuting  the  gratuitous  insinuations  of  I'alfrey 
and  Dexter,  who  charged  the  Ehode  Islanders  in 
question  with  sinister  political  motives  and  excused 
their  alleged  maltreatment  on  that  ground.  Cita- 
tions from  original  documents,  with  a  bibliograpli}^ 
put  the  reader  in  position  to  verify  the  allegations  of 
the  author." — Tlic   Watclunan. 


Bent  postpaid  upon  receipt  of   the  price  by  the 
publishers. 


II 


i%'-xk 


:Ji 


'-^M 


Ui^fS^ 


k'.f&: 

Date  Due  ^ 


k'.; 


,-•#* 


a»mjir<afc^>».^.»Av.;«y-aiig«a  r. 


'  .'""tv  - 


•*•. 


E*::'%*c 


!i ; 


■1 


•/  *- 


.,..x. 


'll.  , 


■yv/^ 


^i^' 

:.^; 


■•WV-t''^^- 


*w  ■■■■■*■ 


^:•^i]^.f,■■.■ 


>^^ 


If 


; -t 


.^* 


*■  1- ^*   .  V^ ■  •  Ik  ■  ^**rl^■  :^ 


